pcb_validate_review_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'refuses to advance' when conditions are unmet, which is a key behavioral trait, and states it returns a 'ValidationGate breakdown.' This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's gating behavior and output without needing to execute it.

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 two sentences that front-load the action and then detail the conditions concisely. Every element earns its place, with no redundant wording. It is highly scannable and efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose, the three validation conditions, and the return value. It could slightly clarify what 'active markets' refers to, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role and outcome.

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 only parameter, session_id, is already described in the schema as 'Session id.' (100% schema coverage). The description does not add further parameter context, but for a simple session identifier, this baseline coverage is sufficient. No additional semantics are needed, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function as a 'preflight gate' with specific validation criteria (required questions answered, standard selected, no stub standards lacking human-review notes). This verb+resource description distinguishes it from sibling tools like pcb_finalize_review or pcb_run_design_review, which have different purposes.

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 opening 'Run the preflight gate' establishes the tool's role as a prerequisite check before advancing in the review workflow. It implies this should be used before finalization or further review steps, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it.

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