alterios_validate_script

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'read and validate' but does not explain if validation is read-only, what errors occur, or required permissions. The validation process is opaque.

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 single sentence is concise and jargon-free, but for a tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, it is too terse. It fails to include necessary details.

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 high number of parameters (7) and no schema descriptions, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain most parameters, nor the output format despite an existing output schema. The tool is underspecified.

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 description implies script_id or name identifies the script, but other parameters (profile, project_id, expected_*) are not explained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 action (read and validate), resource (Alterios script), and identification method (by ID or name). It distinguishes from sibling validation tools that target forms, modules, or processes. However, it could be more specific about the validation scope.

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 alternatives like alterios_validate_form_contract or alterios_validate_module_contract. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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