edict_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (validate AST against schema) and what it doesn't do (no typing or compiling), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error handling, output format, or performance characteristics that would be valuable for an agent.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool's moderate complexity (validation without compilation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and usage well but omits details about what validation results look like (e.g., success/failure messages, error formats) that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'ast' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no format examples or constraints). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('validate'), the target resource ('Edict AST'), and the scope ('against the compiler's JSON schema without typing or compiling'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'edict_compile' or 'edict_check' by emphasizing it's a 'first pass' validation only.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this as a first pass.' This indicates when to use it (early validation) and implicitly when not to use it (for full compilation or typing). It differentiates from alternatives like 'edict_compile' by specifying its limited scope.

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