validate

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

There is a clear contradiction: the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description lists 'set_acceptance_criteria' as one of the actions, which semantically is a write operation. The description adds some behavioral detail (return pass/fail with diagnostics) but this is overshadowed by the conflict, making the transparency score minimal.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence gives the general purpose, and the second sentence lists all actions compactly. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, so the description's mention of return format (pass/fail with diagnostics, affected assets, suggested next actions) is helpful. However, it fails to address the mutating nature of set_acceptance_criteria, lacks categorization of the actions, and the contradiction with annotations leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavioral contract.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-related semantics beyond what the schema's 'action' property already explains (e.g., run_validation_suite runs all assertions, set_acceptance_criteria defines the design contract). Therefore, the description adds no extra value for parameters.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Assertion and validation tools. Run structured checks that return pass/fail with diagnostics, affected assets, and suggested next actions.' It also enumerates distinct actions (assert_*, get_*, set_*), which differentiates it from sibling tools like inspect or observe.

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 usage (run structured checks for validation) and lists action types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'inspect' or 'observe', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No direct guidance is provided for choosing among the various assert actions.

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