copalibre_module_validate_local

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is fetched or installed, that no API token is required, and that the check is identical to the one baked into copalibre module add/verify. That establishes a side-effect-free, offline, unauthenticated operation. It stops short of describing failure output or what is reported when validation fails, and no output schema exists to cover that.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then usage. Every clause earns its place: scope, non-fetching behavior, equivalence to existing commands, and the auth-free property. No filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema validation tool, the description covers what is checked, when to run it, and that it has no network or auth side effects. The main residual gap is what the tool reports on success/failure, which is not documented anywhere given the absence of an output schema.

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 0% and the single 'path' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by specifying that the path is a local module package directory expected to contain manifest.json and artifact.json, which is more than the bare 'string' type conveys. It does not clarify relative vs absolute paths or the error when the directory is malformed.

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 (validates) and a precisely scoped resource (a LOCAL module package directory containing manifest.json + artifact.json), and immediately marks it as distinct from the remote install/verify siblings by saying it fetches and installs nothing. An agent can distinguish it from copalibre_module_verify and copalibre_descriptor_validate without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing: 'Use it after editing a scaffolded module, before trying to install it locally or submit it,' which effectively routes the agent relative to module_add/module_verify/module_submit. It also equates the check to what those two commands apply, so the agent knows when it is redundant. No explicit negative case (e.g., what to use for remote packages) is stated, keeping it just short of a 5.

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