validate_artifact

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the categories of validation (best practices, security, performance) but does not disclose output format, whether any side effects occur beyond read-only, or how failures are reported. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the action and its scope in 12 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?

For a tool with only two required parameters and good annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no output schema means the agent does not know what kind of result to expect (e.g., pass/fail, list of issues). The mention of best practices/security/performance is useful but vague.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters with examples ('table' and 'sys_id'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool validates an artifact for best practices, security issues, and performance concerns, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling validation tools like validate_deployment or validate_query, relying on the schema to imply 'artifact' means things like sys_script or sys_script_include.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_deployment, validate_query, or validate_property. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and parameters.

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