ps_validate_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what is checked but not how failure is surfaced (exception vs. error list), whether anything is mutated on disk, or whether env-var checks can be skipped; the only behavior hint, check_env, lives in the schema rather than the prose.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation the description leaves an agent without enough context to invoke the four optional arguments meaningfully or to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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% for four parameters. The phrase 'config' loosely hints at config_path and 'environment variables' at check_env, but 'sources' and 'periscope_path' are entirely unexplained in either place, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Validate Periscope config') and expands scope to 'required environment variables'. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it makes no attempt to relate itself to any sibling (none of the siblings overlap, so differentiation is less critical here).

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?

There is no indication of when to run this tool, e.g. before ps_run_pipeline or after changing config, and no prerequisites or alternatives are named. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name.

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