validate_connectivity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses the tool's behavior. It details the scanning of every map's events, validation criteria, reachability computation, orphan/unreachable flagging, and the special handling of variable-designated transfers. It also lists all return components (nodes, edges, errors, warnings, summary). This is comprehensive transparency.

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 description is six sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs substantial technical detail into each sentence without fluff. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes unique information, maintaining high density.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates all return data categories (nodes, edges, errors, warnings, summary) and covers edge cases like dynamic transfers. It provides enough detail for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and understand its outputs, making it fully complete for its complexity.

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 for the only parameter (diagram) is 100% with a clear description. The tool description adds 'set diagram=true' as a usage note, but this is merely reiterating the schema description without adding new semantic depth. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Build and validate the world transfer graph.' It enumerates concrete steps (scan events, validate targets, compute reachability) and distinguishes it from siblings like validate_assets and get_map by focusing on world transfer graph connectivity.

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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool: whenever world transfer graph validation is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the uniqueness of the task among sibling tools makes the usage implied. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement.

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