validate_mod_configs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether validation is read-only or if it modifies anything, whether it reports errors via return values or side effects, or any side effects like writing logs. The description lists checks but does not disclose the output format or how failures are surfaced. For a tool named 'validate' with no annotation safety profile, this gap is significant.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the specific checks. Every phrase is informative with no fluff. It is concise and structured effectively.

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's validation action and no output schema, the description should clarify what constitutes a successful validation, what the response format is (e.g., a list of issues), and whether it is a read-only operation. The description lists issue categories but does not describe the return value or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect when invoking it. Sibling tools have varied purposes, so more contextual detail on the validation outcome would help.

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 100% since the single parameter configDir is described as 'Path to the config/ directory'. The description adds a bit of context by implying the directory contains mod config files, but does not clarify if it should be a relative/absolute path or any naming conventions. Since the schema already documents the parameter clearly, the description adds minimal extra value, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Validate' and the resource 'mod config files in a directory', and lists specific checks (empty values, invalid numbers, parse errors, oversized strings). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying a directory-level validation action, whereas read_mod_config and list_mod_configs operate individually or list, and compare/find-orphaned have different purposes. The purpose is clear but not fully explicit about the output or success/failure criteria, so not 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 implies usage for validating config files, but does not state when to use it over alternatives. Siblings like read_mod_config or compare_mod_configs might be preferable for specific tasks, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are given. The context of validating for 'common issues' provides some guidance, but it lacks explicit when-not or comparison to other tools.

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