validate_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns errors/warnings, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it has no side effects. It also doesn't disclose any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens to the input (e.g., whether it mutates the graph). The description is too thin to set expectations.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that immediately states the action and expected output. There is no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with a reference to the validation engine, maintaining efficiency.

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 description is incomplete for an agent that needs to call this tool correctly. It lacks details about the return format of errors/warnings, the validation criteria, whether the graph is mutated, and how to handle the absence of an output schema. The sibling tool schema_latest suggests a schema source exists, but the description does not reference it or explain how the graph version relates to that schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the sole parameter 'graph' as an 'Architecture Graph v0.4', giving some semantic context, but it doesn't explain required fields, valid structure, or how errors relate to the graph's properties. The schema is permissive (additionalProperties: true), so the description should have provided more detail but does not.

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 states a specific verb (validate), a resource (Architecture Graph v0.4), and an output (errors/warnings). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_from_evaluation or blast_radius, which generate or analyze graphs. The reference to 'byaml.validate' adds minor ambiguity but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when validation is appropriate, whether it should be run before other tools, or if there are conditions that make it necessary. The only implicit hint is that it validates a specific graph version, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' context.

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