validate_bundle

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: it clarifies that when 'bundle' is provided the validation is isolated to that bundle, and when absent it applies to the full current index. This is a substantive operational nuance not captured in annotations, but it doesn't deepen further (e.g., what the report contains or failure modes), so it stops short of a 5.

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 leads with the action and resource, then states the scope condition. There is no filler or redundant phrasing; every clause carries necessary information about purpose and selection. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the purpose, the distinction from project validity, and the two invocation scopes. It does not explain domain terms like 'OKF conformance' or describe the output format, but given the simplicity of the tool and the low risk indicated by annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. A slight gap is the lack of guidance on output structure, but that is not critical for a report-style tool.

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 documents the single 'bundle' parameter as 'Optional bundle id to validate in isolation,' and the description adds the complementary behavior when the parameter is omitted (full current index). This gives the agent a complete picture of the parameter's semantics, going slightly above the schema baseline of 3. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds the critical default-case logic, warranting a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Report'), a clear resource (OKF conformance), and explicitly contrasts it with project validity. It also specifies the target scope ('one bundle or the full current index'), which distinguishes it from the sibling validate_project tool. Even without title, the agent can determine what this tool does and how it differs from closely related 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 phrase 'separately from project validity' signals that this tool is appropriate when OKF conformance is the concern, distinct from validate_project. It also clarifies the two operating modes (single bundle vs. entire index), giving the agent a basis for deciding how to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative tool, relying on the implicit contrast rather than an explicit routing instruction.

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