Validate workspace

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool does not launch anything, returns a {valid, errors?, summary} object with summary semantics, and accepts both nested and legacy spec shapes — meaningful behavioral context. It stops short of explicitly stating it never mutates state, but validation is clearly non-mutating.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: action+side-effect, return shape, accepted input variants. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 one-parameter validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential runtime behavior, return format, and input variations. Nothing critical 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 schema provides only an untyped 'spec' with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the parameter is a workspace spec conforming to the hyperpanes schema and enumerates the two accepted shapes (nested windows[]->groups[]->panes[] vs legacy panes[]/groups[]). This adds useful meaning, though it doesn't document all sub-fields.

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?

Specific verb 'validate' with resource 'workspace spec' and clear scope ('against hyperpanes schema'). Distinguishes from sibling launch_workspace/build_workspace by explicitly noting 'without launching anything'.

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?

Provides clear context: validation is a pre-launch safety step and does not launch. Though it doesn't name alternative tools or state exclusions, the contrast with launching and mention of accepted input shapes implies when to use it.

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