validate_component_protocol_signatures

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

With no annotations, the description bears full disclosure burden. It explains that missing annotations are not flagged, missing files are skipped, and specifies the return format {"any_errors": bool, "findings": [...]}. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only validation tool, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 structured with bullet points and a return definition. It front-loads the main purpose and uses compact language. However, it is somewhat verbose for a single-parameter tool, but every sentence adds value. It is generally concise.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the behavior and return format well. However, the lack of parameter explanation and absence of prerequisites or error conditions (though it implies handling) leave gaps. It is minimally adequate.

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 only parameter, strategy_dir, lacks any explanation in the description or schema description. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to clarify what this parameter represents, its expected format, or constraints. This is a significant gap.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: an AST-check for required component classes having required methods with matching return-type annotations. It specifies concrete rules (STR-003, VAL-006) and differentiates from siblings like validate_component_integration by focusing on method signatures.

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 when to use: to validate method signatures against expected annotations and existence of required methods. It provides context on what is not flagged (missing annotations as stylistic choice, missing files silently skipped), but does not explicitly state when to use an alternative or when not to use. Nonetheless, the guidance is clear for a specialized validator.

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