Delimit Repo Config Validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: read-only on the resolved local path, remote inputs are shallow-cloned into a tempdir, and it names the internal code path. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with labeled sections and the core purpose front-loaded. The final sentence about internal backend calls is a marginal implementation detail, but it does not significantly harm readability.

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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, sibling differentiation, side effects, and input semantics. No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 already fully documents the single target parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing accepted input forms (local path, owner/repo, GitHub URL) and explaining the behavioral difference for remote inputs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate repository configuration files.' It clarifies that this checks structural validity and self-consistency, and explicitly contrasts itself with delimit_repo_config_audit and delimit_repo_analyze, so an agent can tell it apart from relevant siblings.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' guidance, naming the exact alternatives (delimit_repo_config_audit for compliance, delimit_repo_analyze for full repo analysis). The sibling contrast further removes ambiguity.

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