Validate library asset

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing deep mode's disposable quarantine bridge, non-9980 port restriction, structured loadTox-only job, bounded polling, scratch cleanup, and the UNVERIFIED (never PASS) outcome for offline evidence. It adds rich behavioral context without contradicting the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. Despite being dense, the two-sentence structure efficiently covers both modes and key constraints without redundancy.

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?

Both validation modes, safety/containment details, and evidence semantics are covered, but the description does not fully specify return/error states beyond PASS/UNVERIFIED. With no output schema, a bit more detail on failure results and output format would make it complete, but the core context is solid.

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?

The description explains the top-level parameters (path, manifest_path, validation_mode) and the purpose of the deep object, but it does not detail the nested parameters such as quarantine_port, max_nodes, or expected_contract. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for these nested parameters.

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 checks a local library asset's existence and optional manifest reference, with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes between static and deep_roundtrip modes, setting it apart from sibling validation tools like validate_operator_chain.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to prefer the cheap static mode by default and describes when to opt into deep_roundtrip with its quarantine and authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools such as inspect_component_manifest.

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