Check movesets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral substance by naming the exact diagnostic categories produced, but doesn't state output format, severity levels, or whether it repairs anything (it does not).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited checklist. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 and no parameters, the description's enumeration of validated categories effectively serves as the return summary. It is close to complete; only the shape/severity of the reported results is omitted.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to enrich, and it correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 verb ('Validate') and resource ('moveset catalogue') and enumerates exactly what is checked: counts per file, missing Name/Type, MovesetIndex range, ContentHash coverage. This is far more specific than a tautology, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with nearest siblings like reanim_check_dances or reanim_validate_module.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and read-only validation framing, but the description never says when to run it (before export, after edits, on failure) or what to do with results. No alternative or prerequisite is named.

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