continuum_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'read-only' sentence is partly redundant, but the description adds real behavioral context: what invalidates results (a dependency that moved since the checkpoint). It does not describe the output on failure or how staleness is reported, though an output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter meaning, then safety. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the invalidations logic is covered. However, with a required run_id and an expected_model parameter entirely unaddressed in both schema and description, an agent lacks guidance on what to pass for them.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'env' well as a {resource: version} map, but says nothing about 'run_id' (the required param) or 'expected_model', leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether saved state is still trustworthy, without changing anything.' That distinguishes it from the mutation siblings (checkpoint, record_progress, resume), though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Gives a condition for passing 'env' and says it is 'safe to call anytime', which implies but does not state when to prefer this over siblings like continuum_confirm or continuum_resume. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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