validate_layer_repo

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

No annotations exist, so the description partially carries the burden. It states the tool 'returns' results, implying it is a read-only check, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, performance characteristics, or any side effects.

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, consisting of two short sentences that convey purpose and output without any redundant or extraneous information.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the validation purpose and return values (status, missing items, suggestions). It could mention criteria for what constitutes a valid structure, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'path' (described as 'Absolute path to the directory to validate'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema's existing documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('BC Code Intelligence layer structure') and clearly states the outputs (validation status, missing items, suggestions). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'scaffold_layer_repo' (creation) and 'analyze_al_code' (code analysis).

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 implies usage for validating layer structure but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'scaffold_layer_repo' or 'analyze_al_code'. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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