validate_after_patch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: it compares two inputs and outputs resolved_count, remaining_count, new_count, and validation_passed, with condition for validation_passed. This adds value beyond annotations, but could include more on error behavior or input validation.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return value explanation. No extraneous information; every sentence is necessary and effective.

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 specific role, the description covers when to use, how to chain with siblings, and what outputs to expect. It is fairly complete but could mention input format expectations (e.g., must be output from scan_project) and handle cases of invalid input.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that baseline_json and after_patch_json are scan results from before and after patch, and that they should be JSON strings. This provides essential meaning beyond the schema's bare field definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: confirming that dependency upgrades resolved CVEs. It specifies the action (validate), resource (dependency upgrades/CVEs), and distinguishes from siblings by noting uniqueness to TridentChain and referencing chainable usage with scan_project.

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?

Description gives clear when-to-use scenarios (after npm update, pip install -U, or patch application) and how to use it (chain with two scan_project calls or pass saved JSON results). It mentions uniqueness but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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