Validate a specification locally and on the network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: a local check followed by a live FluxOS node verification with the specific dimensions checked. It stops short of stating side effects (does it persist or normalize anything?), failure/error reporting, or whether it is purely read-only, which matters for a tool that talks to a network node.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the verification details following. Every clause carries information; no filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by noting the success return (node-formatted spec). For a two-parameter tool with a richly documented nested schema, the definition is nearly complete, missing only failure-mode behavior and explicit sibling routing.

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 coverage is 50%: the `network` flag and most nested spec fields are documented in the schema, but the description adds meaning by explaining what "verify on a node" actually entails. It does not clarify the interaction between `network` and the local-only path, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Runs the local rule checks... verify the specification") and enumerates the actual checks performed (image reachable, architecture, ports, name availability). This clearly separates it from flux_build_spec and flux_deploy_app, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase "exactly as it would at registration" implies this is a pre-deployment gate, so the use case is inferable. However, it never states when to choose this over flux_build_spec or before flux_deploy_app, nor when to skip it.

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