repository_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only lists validation targets. It does not disclose whether validation modifies files, requires credentials or a working tree, or merely reports diagnostics, and it never states that the operation is non-mutating.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the scope of the operation, making it easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists and the target list is explicit, so an agent knows what the tool acts on. However, with no annotations and no usage context or side-effect disclosure, the description is only minimally viable rather than complete.

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 does not map its listed artifacts to repository_path or declaration_path. declaration_path defaults to architecture.yaml but its meaning is left unexplained, so the agent gets little help beyond the raw parameter names and default.

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 uses the specific verb 'Validate' and names a clear resource scope: DSL, templates, paths, matching rules, and local entity files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like repository_commit or repository_describe by the action itself, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling it is not.

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 is provided about when to run validation (e.g., before repository_commit) or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, so an agent must infer use from the tool name and single verb.

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