config_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the response is a diagnostic report covering which file and rule applied, per-section details, failures, and settings that were 'silently ignored' — the last being a noteworthy behavioral trait an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

One well-built sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the return content in a compact, scannable sequence. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 no output schema, the description must indicate what comes back, and it does: the selected file, the selecting rule, per-section reads, and problems including silently ignored values. The only residual gap is that 'strict' behavior and any failure semantics are left to the schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'strict' parameter is fully documented in the schema as treating warnings as failures. The description says nothing about it, so the schema carries the full load — which matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource — checking the config file the server is running on — and enumerates exactly what is reported (file used, selecting rule, per-section reads, errors, silently ignored settings). It is far better than a tautology, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'doctor' tool despite that one likely overlapping in diagnostic scope.

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 usage is implied by the content — an agent would call this when debugging configuration behavior. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over 'doctor' or other diagnostic siblings, and no mention of any prerequisites or exclusions.

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