apex_validate_app

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what is checked (SQL, page refs, missing items) and the output format (score and issues), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 the action and purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value: what is validated, the specific checks, and the return format.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, scope, and return value. It does not enumerate every possible issue type, but the level of detail is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema already provides a full description for the only parameter (app_id), including its default behavior ('Uses current session app if omitted'). With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('APEX app') and clearly states the scope ('check SQL, page refs, missing items') and return format ('score 0-100 + issues'). This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like apex_health_check and apex_check_requirements by highlighting the scored output and specific checks.

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 tool is used to validate an APEX app before deployment or finalization, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of similar tools like apex_health_check or apex_check_requirements. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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