aci_validate

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses the trust-weighted rule ('a grounded fact overrides a lie repeated many times'), the return shape (supports/contradicts, confidence score, explanation), and how to handle flagged results. This goes well beyond the schema and the tool name.

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 three sentences with no filler: first the core function, then the return value, then the usage directive. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves, what it returns, when to use it, and what to do after a flag. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 single parameter 'statement' has a schema description ('the statement to check') that covers it 100%, so the schema already communicates the core meaning. The description reinforces that the statement is a claim that may conflict with stored knowledge, but it adds no new format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('the user's ACI memory'), then specifies the purpose: contradictions and confidence. It also conveys the trust-weighted behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like aci_recall or aci_remember without needing to name them.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: 'ALWAYS call this before you rely on, or repeat to the user, any claim that could conflict with what they actually know.' It also gives a concrete follow-up action — tell the user the claim was checked or caught via ACI-VPU — so the usage guidance is actionable.

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