skypilot_validate

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the two validation scopes (local path existence for workdir/file_mounts, plus server-side spec validation) and the failure contract ('raises an error if validation fails, returns success message otherwise'). This is genuinely useful behavioral context and is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation and its scope front-loaded. Efficient, though the parenthetical '(workdir, file_mounts)' adds a detail that does not map cleanly to any actual parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple 2-parameter validator. The main gap is unexplained parameter semantics, but the error/success contract and validation scopes make it adequate for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains task_yaml or workdir_only. It mentions 'workdir' and 'file_mounts,' but file_mounts is not even a parameter here, so the reader gets no real guidance on what task_yaml must contain or what workdir_only toggles.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Validate a task configuration') and immediately scopes it with 'without launching it,' which distinguishes it from launch tools. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling skypilot_volume_validate, so the differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Without launching it' implies the pre-flight use case, so usage is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no reference to the alternative skypilot_volume_validate (which validates a different resource). The agent must infer the routing.

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