validate_program

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description aligns with that by describing checks rather than mutations. It adds the specific check categories, but does not disclose output behavior, failure semantics, or any operational constraints beyond what the annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return-value details are not required. However, the description lacks usage context and parameter guidance, making it adequate but incomplete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention project_id at all. The input schema only provides the title 'Project Id', so the description adds no additional meaning about how the parameter is used or formatted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and names three concrete validation categories: CXT structural checks, protected-scope integrity checks, and ladder diagnostics. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling program_diagnostics_tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when validate_program should be used compared to alternatives such as program_diagnostics_tool or save_cxt. There is no mention of ideal timing (e.g., before saving) or when not to use the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.