check

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: which linters run, that lint returns a structured findings list, that dry-build/dry-activate are non-mutating previews, the tail-with-log_truncated plus local log_paths on success, and capped diagnostics on failure. It omits any mention of permissions or how long a dry-build may take, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense paragraph that leads with the tool's core purpose and then ordered level detail; every sentence adds information. It is somewhat long but not padded, and the output-behavior sentence earns its place given absent annotations.

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?

Covers purpose, level semantics, platform restriction, and success/failure output shape for a three-parameter tool with no annotations. The main gap is the silent treatment of 'mode' and 'flake_uri'; the output schema existing means return values need not be elaborated, so the added output note is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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% and there are no enums, yet the description supplies the critical semantics for 'level' by naming and explaining each of its three values. It says nothing about 'mode' (which defaults to nixos) or 'flake_uri', leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific action (validation of the configuration) and enumerates the three levels with concrete meaning: lint runs statix+deadnix, dry-build evaluates/plans the closure, dry-activate shows activation changes. It distinguishes the levels clearly but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like build or eval_config, which overlap in 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 'fast to slow' ladder framing gives clear guidance on choosing a level (lint for quick checks, dry-build for closure evaluation, dry-activate for NixOS activation preview). However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings such as build, switch, or eval_config, and the NixOS-only restriction on dry-activate is only implied for the other levels.

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