validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists what kinds of integrity problems are checked, but does not state whether the tool mutates anything, what kind of output it returns, whether it fails fast, or how results are reported.

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 brief, scannable, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The colon-delimited list of checks conveys a lot in a compact form, though it omits some necessary operational context.

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 tool with only one optional parameter, some brevity is acceptable, but the description leaves major ambiguities: what does 'scope' control, what does a successful or failed validation look like, and is the tool read-only? The agent would need to introspect or guess to invoke it correctly in a meaningful way.

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 description does not mention the single optional 'scope' parameter at all. The schema only gives a default of 'user', leaving the agent without any understanding of what scope values are valid or how scope affects the validation.

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 identifies a specific operation—'integrity check'—and enumerates concrete validation dimensions: broken inherits, cycles, unknown keys, redundant deltas, and name collisions. This is clearer than a generic 'validate' and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like check_deltas or normalize_profile, though it never names the resource being validated.

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?

There is no guidance about when to run validate versus related sibling tools such as check_deltas, normalize_profile, or compare_with_upstream. The description gives no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or the typical situation in which this tool should be selected.

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