code_facts_validate

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

No annotations are provided and the description discloses no behavioral details whatsoever. The agent is left entirely unaware of side effects, return values, or operational constraints.

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?

While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a tautological fragment that wastes the only opportunity to inform the agent, so it fails the 'earn its place' test.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and over 80 sibling tools, this definition is completely inadequate. Without any structured annotations or output schema, the description must carry the burden of explanation, and it carries none.

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 schema itself provides no parameter explanations. The description adds nothing about the 7 parameters, including nested objects like 'nodes', 'evidence', and 'context', leaving the agent with no semantic understanding.

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 'code facts validate' merely restates the tool name without any verb, resource, or scope. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling validation tools (edge_validate, node_semantic_validate, business_candidates_validate, etc.), making it impossible to tell what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternatives. No context about the intended workflow, prerequisites, or conditions for selection is provided.

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