Validate Native Evals Artifact

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

With only readOnlyHint available, the description adds real behavioral context: validation is structural only, with no conformance evaluation and no gate computation. It does not say what happens on an invalid artifact or whether errors are returned versus thrown, but the scope disclosure meaningfully prevents misuse.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the disclaiming clause follows immediately.

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 validator with a free-form nested object input and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the expected artifact shape and what a validation result looks like. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot predict inputs or interpret the response.

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% for two required parameters, and 'artifact' is a nested object with no shape guidance anywhere. The phrase 'evaluation reports or gate decisions' implicitly maps to the artifact_type enum values, which is modest compensation, but the structure of the artifact payload is left entirely undocumented.

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 (validate) and resource (native evaluation reports or gate decisions) against a named standard (published Evals 1.0 schemas). It also distinguishes itself from the spec.* and release-gate siblings by scoping to 'native' artifacts and explicitly denying gate semantics.

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 second sentence sets a clear negative boundary: this is not AIOS conformance and does not compute or pass a release gate, which steers an agent away from using it as a gating check. It stops short of naming the correct alternative tool (e.g., spec.validate_artifact or core.release_check) for those cases.

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