Delimit Data Validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the validation dimensions (JSON parse, CSV shape, SQLite integrity), stating the side effect is read-only, and noting it calls backends.tools_data.data_validate. It does not detail failure handling or output behavior, but output schema and annotations reduce that burden.

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, well-organized, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every section earns its place: what it validates, when to use it, when not to use it, sibling contrast, and side effects. No filler or redundant elaboration.

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?

For a simple read-only validation tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It gives the agent sufficient context to decide when to call it, what it checks, and which siblings to use instead.

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% and the only parameter, target, is already documented as a directory or file path with data files and a default of '.'. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate data files: JSON parse, CSV shape, SQLite integrity.' It clearly states what the tool operates on and what checks it performs, and it distinguishes itself from sibling delimit_data_migrate by noting that this tool exercises the data files themselves rather than migration files.

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 provides 'When to use' (smoke checks before relying on data files, CI pipelines, before migrations), 'When NOT to use' (migration status, backups), and names the alternative tools delimit_data_migrate and delimit_data_backup. It also adds a sibling contrast sentence, so an agent knows exactly when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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