spine_validate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the validation categories and that the operation is an offline check (implying a non-mutating read), plus the response keys. It does not state whether the project file is modified, whether errors abort or accumulate, or what 'stats' contains — relevant gaps for a validation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 checklist sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful detail; the second sentence is compact but partly redundant with the existing output schema. Slight overlap is the only waste.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, yet it partly does while omitting the more critical ambiguity of the 'project' argument's type and format. Complete on the validation semantics, incomplete on invocation essentials.

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 0% and the single parameter 'project' is a bare string with no title or explanation. The description never clarifies whether this is a file path, a project directory, or an inline JSON payload, which is the one thing an agent must know to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Validate a Spine JSON project offline') followed by an enumerated list of exactly what is checked (duplicate names, missing parents, ordering, slot bones, attachments, timeline references, keyframe sorting). An agent can distinguish this from spine_doctor or spine_inspect based on the offline, rule-based validation framing.

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 word 'offline' and the validation checklist imply the use case (pre-export/pre-commit sanity check), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as spine_doctor or spine_inspect, despite those being obvious overlapping siblings. Usage must be inferred.

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