validate_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals the return structure (pass/fail with blockers and warnings), the consequence that blockers block progression, and the conditional behavior of known_ids (reference checking skipped if omitted). This is strong disclosure, though it does not address side effects or error handling.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the core function, describe the return value, and explain the optional parameter. There is no filler or redundant information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output structure, and conditional behavior. Some details like valid artifact_type values and content formatting are left to the schema or discoverable via sibling tools such as list_artifact_types, but overall the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the description compensates meaningfully: known_ids is fully explained with its effect, gate is mapped to Definition of Ready/Done, and artifact_type is contextualized as determining the standard to validate against. Content receives only generic treatment and no valid type values are listed, but the essential semantics are covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Validate artifact content against the Definition of Ready or Definition of Done for its type'), which clearly defines the tool's function. It also mentions the pass/fail verdict with blockers and warnings, further distinguishing it from sibling lookup/list tools.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating 'Blockers must be fixed before the artifact moves on', giving a concrete gate-keeping context. It also explains the optional known_ids behavior, so an agent can decide whether to include it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool offers validation, so context is adequate.

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