omni_recipe_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Static linter' strongly signals a read-only analysis and the check list delimitates scope. However, it never says what the tool returns on success/failure or whether invalid recipes produce errors vs warnings, a significant gap for a validation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains a clear subject, verb, object, and a tight list of behaviors. There is no filler, and every clause adds useful information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits the return/output contract, the meaning of 'name', and any example of a valid recipe shape. It covers what is checked, but not what the caller should expect back or how to supply the recipe fully.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It gives context for the recipe object via validation rules but never mentions the 'name' parameter or what it means. The recipe parameter itself is only referred to generically as 'recipe JSON object' rather than connected to the schema property.

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 uses a specific verb ('linter') and a specific resource ('recipe JSON object'), so an agent immediately knows what to invoke it for. It enumerates distinct checks (engine keys, 3x3 pattern, 1.8 registry, 1.20 result form), which differentiates it from siblings like omni_batch_validate.

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?

It clearly implies the use case: statically validate a recipe JSON object before the engine consumes it. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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