tteop_validate_envelope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states what the tool returns ('validation status, schema errors, semantic errors, warnings, and computed metrics') and notes the conditional 'if valid'. This is substantial, though it could also clarify side effects or profile-matching behavior in more depth.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource and then lists the output contract without filler. Every part earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, listing the return components in the description is essential and is covered. The tool is moderately simple (2 params, 1 nested object, 100% schema coverage), and while the description doesn't enumerate specific status values or exact metrics, it provides enough context for an agent to call and interpret results.

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%, with both 'envelope' and 'expected_profile' already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the exact action ('Validate'), the exact resource ('TTEOP v0.1-draft telemetry envelope'), and the criteria ('against the JSON Schema and semantic rules'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tteop_build_envelope and tteop_describe_protocol.

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 implies the use case: pass an envelope object to validate it. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over tteop_run_conformance or tteop_describe_protocol, and gives no explicit exclusions.

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