Validate Strategy Draft

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

It explicitly discloses that 'every call creates a new validation record and capability,' revealing side effects and non-idempotence beyond the annotations. The statement about parsing/compiling the AST without importing the candidate adds meaningful behavioral context. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and the second adds behavioral details, so both sentences earn their place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the side-effect behavior is covered. Still, the description omits any prerequisite context, such as where expected_revision comes from or how this differs from validating a spec, leaving a noticeable completeness gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explain draft_id or expected_revision. draft_id is likely inferable, but expected_revision is not obvious; the 'hash-bound' phrase is only a weak hint. The description does not compensate for the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Statically validate a draft' and adds that it 'issue[s] an exact hash-bound capability,' which makes the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling validate_strategy_spec, so it stops short of a 5.

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 useful context: validation is static and does not import the candidate, which implies it is safe to use for draft checks without executing code. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as validate_strategy_spec.

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