Validate Behaviorlock Inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'validate' without explaining whether the tool is read-only, side-effect-free, returns success/failure, or throws errors on invalid input. This is a significant gap for a standalone validation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. There is no redundant information or 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 tool is simple, but the description lacks usage context and behavioral transparency. It is minimally adequate for understanding the core action, but the agent needs more details about side effects, return behavior, and when to choose this tool over siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by labeling 'contract' as a behavior contract and 'traces' as optional portable trace files. However, it does not elaborate on expected formats, constraints, or how the traces relate to the contract, so it only partially bridges the gap.

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 a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('behavior contract and optional portable trace files'), and adds the distinguishing clause 'without comparing them' to differentiate from the sibling tool behaviorlock_compare. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'without comparing them' implies a separation from comparison, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The context is implied rather than explicitly stated, so the agent must infer when to choose validate over render, explain, or fingerprint.

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