validate_author_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares 'Read-only validation' and explains behavior when both or neither name/email are provided, as well as the return structure. However, it does not elaborate on potential errors or what constitutes a valid config, leaving minor gaps.

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 concise: a few sentences establishing purpose and behavior, followed by a bulleted list of parameters. It front-loads the main action and result, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters and an output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately covers inputs with parameter descriptions and outputs with the return structure. It also references a sibling for combined validation, making it complete for an agent to use.

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 is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., config as 'Inline JSON config overrides', config_path as 'Path to a custom commit-check TOML config file'). This adds value beyond the schema's type-only information, though it lacks details on defaults or constraints.

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 commit author name and/or email using commit-check, and specifies it is read-only. It also mentions returning a structured result. While it distinguishes from the sibling validate_commit_context by pointing out combined validation, it could be more explicit about which rules are applied.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to verify author metadata against configured rules' and directs users to 'use validate_commit_context' for combined validation. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative, fulfilling the dimension criteria.

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