Validate a methodology artifact

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

Even with no annotations, the description fully discloses the return structure ({valid, missing, warnings}) and explains the logic for 'missing' and 'warnings' fields, including handling of template placeholders. No contradictory behavior is implied.

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 two well-structured sentences, the first stating purpose and usage, the second detailing output. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous words.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about inputs and the return object. It covers validation logic and edge cases (template placeholders). A slight improvement could include an example, but it is already complete enough.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'content' must be the full text (not a file path) and explaining how missing detects template placeholders, which improves parameter understanding.

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 the tool validates an artifact's text against a methodology's required structure, using the verb 'check' and naming the resource 'artifact'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'evaluate_gate' or 'kickoff_plan' which have different purposes.

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 description tells users to supply artifact type and full text, and notes the server never reads files. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies it's for validation only, which is sufficient for most agents.

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