Validate Behavior Contract

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on description. The description mentions specific validation aspects (unique IDs, bounded matchers) but omits critical details: what happens on validation failure (e.g., errors returned), whether the tool is idempotent or modifies state, or any permissions required.

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?

A single, well-crafted sentence of 12 words with no redundancy. The verb 'validate' and object 'contract' are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 complex nested input schema, 0% parameter descriptions, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too terse. It does not explain return format, error handling, version constraint (v1 only), or the meaning of 'bounded matchers.' Sibling tools provide no additional context for this specific tool.

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 for the parameter's sub-properties is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds context by naming what is validated (unique rule IDs, bounded matchers), which goes beyond the raw schema. However, it could detail the parameter structure more explicitly.

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 validates a version 1 Agent Invariants contract, specifying 'unique rule IDs and bounded matchers' as key validation foci. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (check_trace, compare_traces, summarize_trace) that operate on traces, not contracts.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that validation should precede trace analysis, but no when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned. The sibling tools' purposes are different, but the description does not clarify when validation is needed.

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