Validate Strategy Spec

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by explicitly naming what is not created: 'no draft, token, or state record is created.' This gives concrete behavioral transparency beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and the key side-effect guarantee. The information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place with no 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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description leaves ambiguity about what a valid StrategySpec looks like and what 'against its immutable dataset' means operationally. The agent has enough to understand the high-level purpose but not enough to confidently invoke the tool with a correct payload.

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?

The schema provides only a generic 'object' type with additionalProperties true and zero description coverage. The description mentions 'StrategySpec' by name but does not explain its required structure, fields, or how it relates to the immutable dataset. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses specific verbs, 'validate' and 'canonicalize', against the 'StrategySpec' resource. It also distinguishes itself from draft-related siblings by explicitly noting that no draft is created, making the tool's role clear.

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 read-only note implies this tool is for validation without side effects, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_strategy_draft. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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