run_validation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Run') and the subject (self-test), but does not reveal whether it has side effects, whether it is read-only, what happens on failure, or what the output means. The output schema exists but is not referenced; the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and scope without waste. It is highly concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter self-test tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits when to use it, what constitutes a successful run, and how to interpret results. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the lack of usage context and behavioral details leaves the description incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters, as there are none.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('built-in correctness self-test'), and gives concrete examples of what it checks (weight sums, alpha-opic guards). This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like 'validate' and 'compliance', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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. It doesn't mention conditions for use, exclusions, or why an agent would prefer this over 'validate' or 'compliance'. The usage context is only implied by the self-test description, leaving an agent to guess when this is appropriate.

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