aide_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 behavioral disclosure. It details six specific checks performed, which is thorough. However, it does not mention whether the tool modifies files (likely not, as it's a health check), or any side effects. The absence of output schema info leaves ambiguity about the return format.

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 sentence listing multiple checks, which is efficient but lengthy. It front-loads the general purpose and then enumerates specifics. One could argue it's slightly verbose due to the enumeration, but each item adds value. Overall, it earns its sentences.

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 no output schema and the complexity of the tool (multiple validation categories), the description fairly thoroughly explains what the tool detects. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., list of issues, exit codes) or how results are returned, which would be helpful. This gap prevents a perfect score.

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 has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'path' described as 'Subdirectory to validate (defaults to entire project)'. The tool description adds context that validation applies to 'the project' but does not significantly enhance the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose as a health check for .aide spec files, listing specific validation checks such as orphaned specs, missing specs, naming conflicts, broken links, orphaned research, and missing descriptions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aide_discover or aide_inspect, which serve different functions.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for validation, but there is no guidance on when to choose aide_validate over aide_inspect or other sibling tools. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.

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