validate_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Verify file paths exist and are accessible' but does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of invalid paths), error handling, or whether it is read-only. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a relevant example. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose and usage adequately but omits critical behavioral details like return value or side effects. It is minimally viable but incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 100% (parameter 'paths' described as 'Array of paths to validate'). The description adds value by clarifying that validation checks existence and accessibility, and provides an example input. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description, meriting a score above the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify file paths exist and are accessible before analysis.' It uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('file paths'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_directory' by focusing on validation rather than analysis.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use when uncertain about path correctness or troubleshooting PATH_NOT_ALLOWED errors.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons, but the stated scenarios are sufficiently specific for an agent to decide.

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