validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the delegation to enforcement engines and the output structure including bundle_id, passed, and results with detailed sub-fields. This is good but could mention side effects or idempotency.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose and one for input/output. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses minimal words without redundancy.

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 3 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description provides the output shape but lacks details on the results array structure (e.g., what constitutes a violation, severity meanings) and behavioral context (e.g., synchronous vs async, error handling). Adequate but with gaps.

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 is 0%, and the description adds meaning by naming and describing each parameter: artifact (object), scope (optional), version (optional). However, it does not elaborate on sub-properties or expected formats, leaving some ambiguity.

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 candidate artifact against in-scope constraints by delegating to enforcement engines.' It uses a specific verb (validate) and resource (artifact), and distinguishes from siblings (describe_scope, get_constraints) which have different actions.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or when not to use it. No context for decision-making between sibling tools is given.

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