palace_lint_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that validation is against the 0.16 schema and that lint rules are run, but it does not say whether the config is mutated, what the failure mode is on invalid config, or how results are surfaced, which matters for a validator with no output schema.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and the optional geometry hint placed second. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. Four parameters are unexplained and the agent gets no sense of the return shape or what happens when validation fails.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for geometry (the *.tags.json file, used for distance/patch checks) and implicitly covers config, but spec, ram_gb, unknowns, and palace_version are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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) plus resource (Palace config), names the schema version (0.16), and enumerates the lint domains checked (solver choice, ports, boundaries, units, AMR, sweeps). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like palace_lint_rules or palace_check, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The description gives one conditional usage hint - pass geometry when distance/patch checks are wanted - which is genuinely useful. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over palace_check, palace_doctor, or palace_lint_rules, and no prerequisites are stated.

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