validate_output_terms

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on validation failure, or whether it modifies state. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

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, which is concise, but it lacks essential information. However, it is front-loaded and wastes no 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?

Given the single parameter and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the validation process, the meaning of 'local fact base', or the expected output.

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 does not add meaning to the 'terms' parameter beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent needs details on what constitutes valid terms, but none are provided.

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' and identifies the resource 'output terms against the local fact base'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_lexicon_pack and validate_policy_pack by focusing on output terms, but does not clarify what 'generated output terms' are.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With many sibling validation and enforcement tools, the description should indicate appropriate contexts or prerequisites.

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