validate_area

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

Describes recursion and return fields, including 'pass' indicating a boolean result. No annotation exist, so description carries full burden; it lacks mention of side effects (e.g., read-only), permissions, or error behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 short sentences, no filler. First sentence states action and recursion; second sentence gives syntax and return shape. Every word earns its place.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input, action, recursion, and return fields. Missing details like error conditions or idempotency, but overall sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (single path parameter). Description adds meaning by saying 'Pass { path }' and indicating path is the subtree root, plus it appears in the return structure, clarifying its role beyond the schema type definition.

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?

Clearly states 'validates a subtree' with recursion, and 'Use for checking a section of the directory' implies scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools validate_all and validate_folder, which likely validate entire directory or specific folders.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for checking a section of the directory', providing clear context for when to use this tool. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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