validate_module

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 states that the tool 'validates' and describes the two input modes, but gives no information about what validation checks are performed, whether it is read-only (likely, but not stated), what the return value looks like, or any error behavior. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the mode selection.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is stated first, followed by the mode-selection guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence earns its 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers how to call it (the two modes) but does not explain what the validation result looks like, what criteria are used, or how errors are surfaced. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return structure or behavior. It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the outcome. Given the complexity, a 3 is fair.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds a brief context for modulePath vs files usage, and the schema itself already covers the moduleId inference. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, such as clarifying the 'remote mode' for files, but it does not introduce new meaning for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 action ('Validate module structure, code, and conventions') and clarifies the two input modes (modulePath vs files). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_module or fix_module, but the verb 'validate' and the mention of 'conventions' gives it a distinct identity. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to recognize what it does.

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 gives explicit, actionable guidance: 'Use modulePath when the MCP runs with cwd at the FrameIO repo root. Use files (package.json + src/index.ts contents) when the MCP is remote or cannot read your disk.' This clearly tells an agent when to choose each mode, which is exactly what usage guidelines should provide. It does not mention alternatives like analyze_module, but the mode selection is fully covered.

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