Validate TD Patch Target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'Read-only validation' confirming safety but lacks detail on specific validation behaviors. With annotations covering core traits, additional context is moderate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with legacy warning. No redundant text; every sentence contributes essential information. Highly efficient.

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 output schema exists and annotations are rich, description covers purpose and usage. Does not detail validation processes or error conditions, but completeness is acceptable for a simple read-only tool with good structured metadata.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema; 'target_root' and 'capture_frames' are not elaborated. No extra semantic value provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs 'Read-only validation for patch compatibility workflows' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by labeling itself as legacy and directing users to td_brain_plan/td_brain_execute.

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?

Explicitly states 'Legacy — prefer td_brain_plan → td_brain_execute; slated for removal in v3.0.' Provides clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, fulfilling the highest standard.

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