validate_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral semantics: errors mean the pack will not load, warnings mean it will load but underperform silently. This adds context beyond the schema, though it does not specify mechanics or required permissions.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundancy, and every clause adds value. Perfectly concise and structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits parameter semantics and usage context relative to siblings. With 6 parameters and no annotations, an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without external knowledge, making the description incomplete.

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 provides zero explanation of parameters such as pack, questions, labels, or z_threshold. This is a significant gap; the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema, leaving an agent uncertain about what each parameter means.

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 pack against two specific criteria: the schema the live copilot loads and measurement-based silent underperformance. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on validation rather than reading, writing, or composing packs.

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 explains the meaning of errors and warnings, which helps users interpret the result and implies when to use the tool (to check pack health before use). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like check_paraphrases or pack_authoring_guide, nor provide exclusions.

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