validate_vex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the use of temporary .vfl files, subprocess.run with timeout=10, shell=False, a 64KB output cap, finally-cleanup of source and artifacts, and a detailed return structure. It also specifies what it does NOT do (no exec/eval/compile/hscript), giving the agent a clear safety profile.

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 dense but every sentence adds critical information: purpose, implementation details, exclusions, timeouts, cleanup, return type, and response handling. It is efficiently structured with clear separations, no filler, and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description provides a thorough specification including the return shape, safety constraints, and resource limits. It does not fully clarify the semantics of the 'ctx' parameter or the meaning of diagnostic severity levels, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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%, yet the description does not explain the meaning or expected format of the three parameters (ctx, code, context). While 'code' is inferable, 'ctx' and 'context' are ambiguous. The description mentions a 'context' field in the return value but not how the parameter should be set. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of coverage.

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 clearly states the tool compiles VEX using the real HFS/bin/vcc compiler, which is the core purpose of validation. It explicitly contrasts itself with execution tools by forbidding exec/eval/hscript and stating it does not execute compiled artifacts, thereby distinguishing it from siblings like execute_houdini_code or execute_hscript. The verb 'compile' and resource 'VEX' are specific.

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?

The description implies the tool is for safe syntax checking without execution, and explicitly lists what it does NOT call (Python exec, hscript, etc.), which hints at when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to validate VEX without executing' or name alternative sibling tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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