validate_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Lint' and 'detects' imply a non-mutating validation pass, and the specific detection categories explain what the tool does. It does not explicitly state side-effect freedom or permission requirements, but the language strongly signals read-only analysis for a pre-import check.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: purpose, concrete detection examples, and a single usage directive. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause 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?

Given a single input parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and when to call it. It could explicitly confirm that no changes are made or name sibling alternatives, but it leaves no major workflow ambiguity for a validation tool.

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 only parameter, asset_ids, has an empty items schema. The description compensates by clarifying that these are 'owned assets planned for one project/stack,' and the plural usage plus 'importing multiple assets' conveys that all intended assets should be passed together.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lint a set of owned assets that are planned for one project/stack.' It also enumerates concrete outputs (role conflicts, family notes, missing prerequisites), which makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_stack_recommendations or audit_project without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives explicit invocation context: 'Call before importing multiple assets together.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the workflow placement is clear enough for an agent to choose this over search, recommendation, or import tools.

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