validate_behavior

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by explicitly stating that the behavior is neither saved nor run, and it scopes validation to restricted PC-side behaviors.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Without saving or running it' is a high-value qualifier that adds behavioral precision rather than filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the core purpose and side-effect profile are covered. However, the term 'restricted' is vague, there is no guidance on what validation produces, and the usage relationship to run_behavior and submit_behavior is only implied.

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 the source parameter or its expected format. The name and schema make it inferable that source is behavior source code, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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, 'validate', and a specific resource, 'restricted PC-side behavior'. The qualifier 'without saving or running it' clearly differentiates this from run_behavior and submit_behavior.

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 phrase 'without saving or running it' implies this is a dry-run validation tool and signals it is not for execution or persistence. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over run_behavior or submit_behavior, leaving the usage context to inference.

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