validate_dx_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the operation is non-executing (no side effects), reveals the underlying command (delegates to `squirex generate-tests --validate`), and discloses a key requirement (Salesforce CLI). It lacks detail on output behavior, but the disclosed traits are substantive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by implementation detail and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, side-effect-free nature, underlying command, and prerequisite. It does not describe return values, but given the simplicity and the explicit command reference, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameter testFilePath is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-related info, but with complete schema coverage, a baseline of 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 purpose: "Validate a generated Agentforce DX test spec without executing it." It uses a specific verb (validate) and specific resource (Agentforce DX test spec), and explicitly distinguishes this from execution, setting it apart from sibling tools like run_tests.

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 for when to use: it validates rather than executes. It also notes the prerequisite (Salesforce CLI with Agentforce DX support). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of run_tests', only implying the distinction via 'without executing it'.

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