tarn_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly indicates the tool performs a read-only check (no execution) and validates syntax/schema. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and constraint, the second adds detail. Every word earns its place.

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 validation tool with only two parameters (fully documented in schema) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function. It could mention return values or error indications, but the current level is adequate for most use cases.

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%, and both parameters (cwd, path) have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it validates .tarn.yaml files by checking YAML syntax and schema validity, with the key distinction of not executing them. This verb+resource pair is specific and immediately distinguishable from siblings like tarn_run (execution) and tarn_inspect (inspection).

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 phrase 'without executing them' provides clear context that this tool is for pre-execution validation. While it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, the sibling tool names (e.g., tarn_run, tarn_rerun_failed) naturally imply those alternatives, making the usage context sufficiently clear.

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