validate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. But the description does not explain how the two validations interact, what 'Trace Pair' means, what happens when strict is true, or whether the check is complete or partial. For a validation tool with two distinct advertised modes, this leaves substantial behavioral gaps.

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?

A single short sentence is concise but too terse for a five-parameter validation tool with two advertised modes. It front-loads nothing useful and reads like a title restatement rather than a definition.

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?

With five undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, and an unclear relationship to the validate_pair sibling, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. An agent would have to guess at parameter semantics and tool selection.

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% across five parameters including two enums (profile, cognitive) and a boolean (strict). The description mentions none of them, so an agent has no idea what 'cognitive', 'profile', 'root_spec', or 'strict' control. This actively fails to compensate 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?

The description states two operations (structural conformance check and Trace Pair validation) but is vague about what is being validated and what the tool actually examines. It overlaps with the sibling validate_pair, and the description does not define the distinction. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from validate_pair based on the text alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus validate_pair or inspect, despite an obviously competing sibling named validate_pair. No prerequisites, no context about what kind of artifact is validated. Usage is only implied by the name and sibling list.

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