okf_validate_concept

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the explicit detail that it does not write a proposal or concept file, which reinforces the non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose what the validation returns (e.g., success/failure, error list), so the description provides only marginal value beyond the 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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. The key constraint ('without writing a proposal or concept file') is front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does not do. This is an appropriate size for a validation tool with few parameters.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., validation result, errors) but does not. It also gives no details about what 'validate' entails (e.g., required frontmatter fields, path rules). Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested frontmatter object, multiple parameters), this description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without probing.

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%, meaning every parameter (path, frontmatter, body, bundle) is already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics, such as required combinations or validation rules, so it relies entirely on the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('a proposed new OKF concept'), and adds the key delimiting phrase 'without writing a proposal or concept file' which clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented tools and aligns with its read-only nature. This is not a tautology and differentiates it from sibling validation tools like validate_bundle and validate_project by targeting a concept-level validation.

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 that the tool is for validating a concept before writing any files, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as validate_bundle or validate_project. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and the 'without writing' phrase.

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