validate_character

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only integrity check, but says nothing about what validation failure looks like, whether it mutates state, what permissions are required, or how the hash comparison is performed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it may be under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a three-parameter, all-required validation tool with no annotations, however, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently — the parameters and failure semantics remain unexplained.

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?

All three parameters (project_root, character_id, version) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place semantics could be added — yet it names none of them. 'Exact character lineage' faintly gestures at the version/id pairing but gives no format or constraint guidance.

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?

States a specific verb pair (read and validate) plus the resource (character lineage and recorded artifact hashes), which is distinct from every sibling — none of the other tools validate anything. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from inspect_project or inspect_asset, but the intent is legible.

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 indication of when to call this versus inspecting an asset or comparing versions, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the integrity-check entry point rather than a general inspection tool.

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