Ultrabrain Validate

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

Annotations already indicate it is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds specific behavioral context about the validation dimensions (evidence, bias, etc.), going beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads key information, with no wasted words.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and its validation aspects, but given the absence of an output schema, it does not describe the return format or behavior (e.g., success/failure indicators), leaving some contextual gaps.

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 67%, with the 'strict' parameter lacking a description. The description does not elaborate on any parameters, missing the opportunity to explain their purpose beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks a reasoning session for specific gaps (evidence, alternatives, etc.), with a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like analyze or metrics.

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 the tool is used for validating reasoning sessions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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