spawner_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the operation (fetching validation rules) but does not disclose behavioral details such as what happens if no skills match, the return format, or whether the rules are returned as a list or object. The description is honest but minimally informative beyond the basic action.

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 directly state the purpose and a usage hint. There is no filler, and every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify what the returned validation rules look like or how they are formatted. It subtly implies a use case but leaves some ambiguity about the result structure. Barely adequate for an AI agent to know what to expect.

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?

The schema already describes the 'technology' parameter as 'Technology or pattern to get validations for (e.g., react, api, stripe),' and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 a specific action ('Get validation rules') and a specific resource ('from skills that match a technology or pattern'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawner_skills or get_skill, which likely deal with listing or retrieving skills themselves.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Use these to validate code quality.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the recommended use case is clear and appropriate.

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