net_validate_common_mistakes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does name concrete checks, which gives useful behavioral specificity, and the KB pointer adds context. But it never states whether the operation is read-only, what scope it covers, whether it modifies the Blueprint, or how findings are reported.

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 compact and front-loaded. The core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a useful KB reference and a minimal call example. Every line earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the 'what' well through examples and a KB link. However, target-selection semantics, side-effect behavior, and broader usage boundaries are left to inference, leaving a real gap when an agent must decide whether this is the right validation tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions blueprint_name. The schema title 'Blueprint Name' and default value are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify the expected name format, what an empty value means, or whether the parameter filters validation scope.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Validate') and a concrete resource ('common Blueprint networking mistakes'), then enumerates three concrete categories: replicated state on non-replicating Actors, missing RepNotify handlers, and risky RPCs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling net_* tools that configure or describe replication rather than audit it.

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 intended use is implied clearly: run this when you want to check a Blueprint for common networking mistakes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, even though nearby siblings like net_describe_blueprint_replication and bp_validate_blueprint could serve related purposes.

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