validate_spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that canonical JSON is only included on request, but it does not disclose validation failure behavior, strict vs. non-strict effects, or the impact of compile_check.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It could contain more detail, but what is included is efficiently written and easy to parse.

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?

With six parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate, but it covers only the return spec_id and optional canonical JSON. The output schema helps with return values, but agents still lack guidance on the meaning and interaction of the other five parameters.

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 description carries the full burden for explaining parameters, but it only hints at the include_spec behavior ('canonical JSON only on request'). The meanings of strict, backend, compile_check, and data_bindings are left unexplained, making correct invocation harder.

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 names a specific verb ('Validate'), a resource (spec), and the output (spec_id), and notes that canonical JSON is optional. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compile_spec or render_spec, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose validate_spec over compile_spec, get_spec, or other siblings. It lacks preconditions, exclusions, or a recommended use case, so an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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