bundle_validate

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It mentions reproducibility (rerun and verify results) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or failure modes. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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 one sentence with a list of checks, which is efficient. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description covers the tool's actions adequately. Parameter details are missing, but the core purpose is clear. Adequate for a validation tool with simple parameters.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level details. It mentions 'bundle_dir' implicitly but does not explain 'run' or 'compile_pdf'. Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 lists all validation checks (layout, reproducibility, macros, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings, which are unrelated search/fetch tools.

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 analysis bundles but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. However, sibling tools are very different, so context suffices.

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