ts_acl_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool validates without applying and returns errors or 'passed', but lacks details on auth needs, rate limits, or what constitutes a valid policy. Adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: 'Validate an ACL policy without applying it. Returns errors or 'passed'.' It is perfectly concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema (existence known), the description is sufficient: it states purpose, behavior, and return value. No additional context needed for a simple validation tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description: 'ACL policy as JSON string to validate'. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Validate', the resource 'an ACL policy', and the behavior 'without applying it' and 'Returns errors or 'passed''. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ts_acl and ts_acl_set by emphasizing validation vs. application.

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 phrase 'without applying it' implies a dry-run or validation step before using ts_acl or ts_acl_set, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or provide conditions for use. This is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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