ps_validate

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 mentions the return type ('validation report with errors, warnings, and suggestions') which is helpful, but doesn't describe what happens during validation - whether it's a read-only operation, if it modifies state, what permissions are required, or any performance characteristics. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly concise - one sentence that states the action and return value with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in this compact description.

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 validation tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like whether validation is resource-intensive, if it requires specific permissions, or how the validation report is structured. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally say more about the return format.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., how parentFrame interacts with validationLevel='chain') or provide examples of valid frame strings. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 tool's purpose: 'Validate a PromptSpeak frame' with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('PromptSpeak frame'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ps_execute or ps_symbol_get by focusing on validation rather than execution or symbol management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ps_validate_batch, which appears to be a batch version of the same function.

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 ps_validate_batch for batch operations, nor does it explain when validation is needed versus execution tools like ps_execute. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or integration with other tools in the system.

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