Validate a Maestro flow YAML

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing specific validation checks (appId, separator, steps, runScript) and confirms no execution. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence covers purpose and key checks; second clarifies non-execution and recommends usage. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully informs about what the tool does, why to use it, and what to expect. No gaps.

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 already describes the single 'name' parameter with pattern and length. Description adds context by linking validation details to the flow name, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax. With 100% coverage, baseline is 3; slight extra context earns a 4.

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?

Verbs like 'validates' and 'Statically validates' clearly define the action. Resource is specified as 'flow YAML'. Distinguishes from sibling 'run_maestro_flow' by stating it does NOT execute.

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?

Explicitly recommends using this before run_maestro_flow to catch issues early. Mentions it works without the binary, which sets expectations. No exclusions needed, but clear context.

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