assay_check_args

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'validate tool arguments' without any details on side effects, return behavior on success/failure, authentication needs, or rate limits. Since the tool performs validation, the description should at least hint at whether it returns a boolean, throws errors, or has any side effects. The current description lacks this essential transparency.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence. While this is efficient and front-loaded, it may be too terse for a tool with three parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema. The description earns its place by being clear about the overall action, but it could be slightly expanded to include essential details without becoming verbose.

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 moderate complexity (three parameters, nested object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the output/return value, which is critical for an agent to know how to use the tool. Additionally, it does not explain the relationship between parameters or provide any behavioral context. The description leaves significant gaps that could hinder correct invocation.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds minimal context: it mentions 'tool arguments' and 'policy schema', implying that 'arguments' is the object to validate and 'policy' is the schema to validate against. However, it does not explain the 'tool' parameter or provide details on the structure of 'arguments' or 'policy'. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate with more detailed parameter semantics, but it does not.

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: 'Validate tool arguments against a policy schema.' It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('tool arguments'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assay_check_coverage, which check coverage, and assay_check_sequence, which check sequences. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when validation is needed, or how it fits into a workflow. For example, it doesn't say whether this should be called before invoking another tool or as a standalone check. This omission leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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