shadowgraph_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it reports by severity, never modifies storage, names legacy data instead of guess-repairing, and reports newer-schema data without downgrading it. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler; the primary purpose and read-only behavior are front-loaded, then sibling distinctions and legacy-data handling are stated economically. Every sentence 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?

With no parameters, an output schema available, and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary guidance: what it reports, that it is read-only, how it relates to sibling tools, and how it handles legacy and newer-schema data. Nothing important is missing.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies because parameter explanation is not needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report graph integrity diagnostics by severity.' It also differentiates itself from shadowgraph_repair_plan and shadowgraph_rebuild by describing what those tools do versus this one, so an agent can distinguish them.

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 clearly identifies the tool's diagnostic role and contrasts it with shadowgraph_repair_plan (what a fix would involve) and shadowgraph_rebuild (tests journal reproduction). It does not explicitly state 'use when' or list exclusions beyond those two, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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