placement_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check,' which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not state whether it modifies actors, what the output/return format is, or how errors are reported. No side effects or limitations are disclosed.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the validation returns, whether thresholds are configurable, what 'alignment issues' means, or whether the tool has side effects. The agent would have to rely on the schema and guess at behavior.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context ('gaps', 'overlaps', 'alignment') which maps to the check_gaps and check_overlaps parameters, but it also mentions 'alignment issues' with no corresponding schema parameter, causing minor ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('check'), a specific resource ('actors'), and the exact aspects being checked ('gaps, overlaps, and alignment issues'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that spawn, modify, or delete actors.

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 the tool is for validating actor placement, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case is inferable from the verb 'check' and the tool name.

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