validate_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at validation logic ('using rules parsed from the repository') but does not describe side effects, error states, permissions required, return behavior, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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 sentence. While concise, it omits critical operational details (e.g., output format, error handling) that would be expected for a validation tool. The brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should fully describe the tool's behavior and results. It fails to specify what 'validation' entails (e.g., returns errors, passes, warnings). The 2-parameter tool with 50% schema coverage is inadequately documented for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 50% (only 'code' has a description; 'sdkVersion' does not). The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the purpose or format of 'sdkVersion', nor does it clarify any nuances of 'code'. This fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 explicitly states 'Validate UdonSharp code using rules parsed from the repository', providing a specific verb (validate), resource (UdonSharp code), and a distinguishing mechanism (rules from repository). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like explain_validation or search_best_practice.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or when to avoid it. The description lacks any comparative or conditional usage advice.

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