validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says it runs a self-test but does not indicate whether it is read-only, what the output looks like, whether it performs any side effects, or what 'correctness' entails beyond vague hints. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. The parenthetical clarification about what the self-test checks adds useful context without bloating the description.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks any usage context, such as when this self-test should be run relative to other tools, and it doesn't clarify whether this is a safe read-only operation. Given the simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in guidance and behavior.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to add; the schema is empty and the description doesn't need to compensate for anything.

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 action ('Run') on a specific resource ('built-in correctness self-test') and gives a hint of scope ('weight sums, alpha-opic guards'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'run_validation', which could be confused with this. The purpose is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context for selection. With sibling tools like 'run_validation' present, the lack of routing guidance is a notable gap.

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