config_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a validation/check operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what happens on hash mismatch, whether it mutates state, or what permissions are needed; the output schema offsets return-value gaps but not behavioral ones.

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 short and front-loads the check operation, but the second clause is opaque and poorly connected to the first. It is concise without being sufficiently informative.

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 two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description should do more to explain inputs and validation behavior. The presence of an output schema helps only with return values, not with the core 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions config_path or resolve_objects. The vague phrase 'resolve exact instance selectors' does not clearly map to the resolve_objects parameter, so no meaningful parameter semantics are added.

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 phrase 'Check schema/source hashes' gives a concrete validation action, so the basic purpose is inferable. However, the second clause ('resolve exact instance selectors and visibility before assembly') is cryptic and does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as config_read, config_save, or environment_inspect.

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?

'after inspect' provides only an oblique sequencing hint, likely referencing environment_inspect, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus config_read/config_save or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer the workflow.

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