validate_wdl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates syntax but doesn't describe what happens during validation - whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, what errors might be returned, or how results are presented. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration. This is optimal conciseness for a simple validation 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a validation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain what 'syntax validation' entails, what standards are checked, and typical use cases. It's minimally adequate but leaves important context implicit.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, with only 1 parameter (wdl_path), the agent can reasonably infer it's a file path for validation. Baseline 3 reflects minimal viability given single parameter simplicity.

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 '验证 WDL 文件的语法正确性' clearly states the action (validate) and resource (WDL file syntax correctness). It's specific about what validation is performed (syntax checking). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_workflow_input_json' which validates different aspects of workflow files.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when validation should occur in a workflow lifecycle, or how this differs from other validation tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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