Validate service runtime

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already established. The description adds that it returns diagnostics and validates specific inputs, providing some behavioral context. It does not describe the format of diagnostics or failure modes, but given the annotation, this is acceptable.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes the key purpose. No wasted words.

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 relatively simple and the readOnly annotation helps, but the lack of an output schema and zero param descriptions means the description should clarify return values and parameter roles. It gives a high-level purpose but leaves some ambiguity.

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 description names cwd, env, and config as the subjects of validation, adding some semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the required language and project_root parameters, and schema coverage is 0%, leaving gaps.

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') with a clear resource (cwd/env/config for a language service) and explicitly ties it to a pre-step for upsert_service, distinguishing it from sibling tools like diagnose_service.

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 phrase 'before upsert_service' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the connection to the upsert workflow is strong.

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