Validate Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that secret scrubbing is automatic and can be disabled, which is a behavioral trait. However, there is a potential contradiction: scrubbing secrets may imply modification, conflicting with readOnlyHint, but it could be interpreted as a pure transformation.

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 concise and well-structured with bullet points for the two tiers. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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?

While the description thoroughly explains the tool's functionality, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a validation report or success status). Given no output schema, this is a gap for completeness.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the validation tiers, which do not map directly to parameters.

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 starts with 'Run multi-tier validation on content', specifying a clear verb and resource. It then details two tiers of checks, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_static_analysis' or 'scrub_secrets' which focus on specific aspects.

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 general validation usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_static_analysis' or 'scrub_secrets'. No exclusions or context for selection are provided.

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