devtools_validate_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the output shape ('status, stdout, stderr, exit_code'), confirms the tool takes no arguments, and implies the tool only reports missing variables rather than fixing them. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior, but 'validate' strongly implies no mutation.

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 well-organized as a compact metadata block and front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (TOOL_NAME and DISPLAY_NAME restate the obvious), but no unnecessary prose inflates it and every field contributes usable operational guidance.

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 zero-argument validation tool, the description covers the use case, invocation, prerequisites, expected output, an example, and related tools. The presence of an output schema further covers return-value details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool 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?

There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly reinforces this with 'Call with no arguments' and 'INPUT_DESCRIPTION=none.' This fully resolves any ambiguity an agent might have about invocation, exceeding the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Validate the dev-tools configuration before deployment.' It further specifies the exact purpose with 'Confirm required SNO_* variables and BMC credentials are set,' which clearly distinguishes validation from sibling tools like devtools_show_config or devtools_deploy_sno.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: 'Call with no arguments; fix any reported missing variables.' It also lists relevant prerequisites (SNO_BMC_HOST, SNO_NODE_MAC via configs/sno.local.sh) and related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it directly with alternatives.

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