vibemk_validate_host_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'validate,' which implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or what permissions are required. This lack of transparency could be misleading if validation triggers background actions.

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 but redundant, repeating 'Validate host config' and 'Validate host configuration.' It is structured as a single sentence but could be more concise.

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 does not explain the validation logic, possible outcomes, or how the parameters affect validation. There is no output schema, and the interaction between folder, operation, and attributes is unclear, making the tool's behavior incomplete for an agent.

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?

Each parameter has a description, but they are minimal and vague. For example, 'attributes' gives no structure or example, and 'operation' lists allowed values but is not enforced as an enum. The descriptions do not sufficiently clarify expected input formats or relationships between parameters.

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 clearly states the action (validate) and the resource (host configuration). It also specifies the context ('before applying changes'), which distinguishes it from create/update tools. However, it repeats the same phrase twice, which slightly detracts from clarity.

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 a temporal hint ('before applying changes') indicating when to use it relative to create/update operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, so guidance is limited.

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