resource_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that invalid lines are listed (an output behavior), but says nothing about what counts as invalid, whether it mutates state, or how results are surfaced.

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?

A single terse clause, front-loaded with the verb and result. It wastes no words, though it is arguably too sparse to be maximally useful for a multi-parameter tool.

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 read-only validator with two optional, fully documented parameters this is minimally adequate. There is no output schema, so the brief mention of listing invalid lines is the only return-value hint, and the validation scope/criteria remain unstated.

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 100% and both parameters (project, workdir) carry their own defaults and descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 (校验/validate) and resource (资源文件/resource files) plus the outcome (列出非法行/list invalid lines), so an agent knows what the tool produces. However, it gives no differentiation from validation-adjacent siblings such as revalidate, and '资源文件' is not scoped to a particular resource type.

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?

No guidance on when to run this versus alternatives like revalidate, resource_harvest, or scan, and no prerequisite or context is given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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