decomp_config_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that validation is read-only/non-mutating, does not say whether it returns a boolean, an error list, or throws, and does not describe severity levels or partial-validation behavior. Only the broad notion of 'syntax and structure' checking is conveyed.

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 sentence with no filler, and the verb and target are front-loaded. Its brevity comes at the cost of missing detail rather than being padded, which is the right trade-off for this dimension.

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 validator with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what a result looks like and what counts as valid, since the agent has no structured field to fall back on. Neither the return contract nor the validation scope beyond 'syntax and structure' is supplied, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'path' as the configuration file location. The description adds nothing about path constraints (must exist, absolute vs relative, must be a decomp config rather than arbitrary file), so baseline 3 applies.

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 (validate) and resource (decompilation configuration file) with the scope of validation limited to syntax and structure. It is distinguishable from the mutation siblings decomp_config_propose_changes and decomp_config_apply_changes, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with decomp_config_inspect, which covers similar ground.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to run this before propose/apply changes, whether it must be run on a file produced by decomp_config_inspect, or what to do on failure. The agent must infer the workflow position of this tool from the name alone.

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