validate_pair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds scope context: only Pair alignment, no structural findings. That is useful, but it does not describe return behavior, limitations, or other operational traits.

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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical clarification. No words are wasted and the key distinguishing information is immediate.

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 covers purpose and sibling differentiation, but with two parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, it leaves parameter meaning entirely unexplained. An agent would have to infer what 'trace' and 'root_spec' control.

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% and the description never mentions the 'trace' or 'root_spec' parameters, their defaults, or their meaning. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 operation (trace Pair alignment) and narrows it against the sibling validate tool by excluding structural findings. The resource 'Pair alignment' is domain-specific but clear enough to distinguish from validate.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with validate by stating it is narrower and omits structural findings, giving clear context for when to choose it. It does not spell out all when-not conditions, but the alternative is named.

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