validate_tester_ini

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 states the tool performs a sanity-check and optional cross-check, but does not describe side effects (likely read-only), output format, error handling, or prerequisites. This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is succinctly presented.

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 output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify return values, success/failure indicators, or required file format. Given the context (2 params, no annotations), more detail is needed for reliable agent usage.

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%, but the description adds meaning: 'config' is the tester.ini file, and 'source' triggers cross-checking. This clarifies the parameters beyond their names and types.

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 the tool validates a 'tester.ini' file, with optional cross-checking against EA declarations. It uses a specific verb ('sanity-check') and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'syntax_check' or 'lint_basic'.

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 'source' parameter for cross-checking, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'patch_tester_ini' or 'read_tester_report'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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