personal_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is read-only, that it distinguishes failure/warning/clean, and that by default all captures must have completed derivation closure. This goes beyond a generic 'validate' statement and gives an agent useful behavioral 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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: validation scope, result categories, default behavior, and read-only safety. There is no filler.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose, output categories, default behavior, and read-only nature. However, given that the only parameter 'strict' is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, the definition is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it with full confidence.

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 schema has one boolean parameter, 'strict', with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'strict' does or how it interacts with the default derivation-closure requirement, leaving the agent to guess whether setting strict to true relaxes or tightens validation.

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 ('校验' / validate) and a clear resource ('v2 结构' / v2 structure), and it clarifies the output categories of failure, warning, and clean. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings by name, but the validate action is distinct enough among the listed siblings.

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 conveys that this tool is for validating the v2 structure and implies it should be used when such validation is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool guidance.

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