validate

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the return shape (errors and warnings annotated with file and line) and a notable behavior — reporting where a moved file now lives. This is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it stops short of explaining rule severity or scoping behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a dense but non-redundant enumeration of check categories and one sentence on the return value. The long comma-separated list is information-dense rather than padded, though it is a single heavy sentence.

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 read-only linter with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is inspected and what comes back (errors/warnings with file and line). Missing only parameter-level scoping detail, which the schema partially supplies.

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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters (docs, rules with examples, collection). The description's rule list loosely maps onto the rules parameter but adds no syntax or semantics for collection scoping or the docs flag, so it neither compensates for the gap nor meaningfully enriches what the schema provides.

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 and resource ("Check initiatives and collection structure") and enumerates the exact defect classes it detects, so an agent knows it is a structural linter. However, the generic name "validate" and the absence of any reference to the sibling check_docs (which overlaps given the docs flag) leave some ambiguity about which validation tool to pick.

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 describes what is checked but never says when to run it, when not to, or how it relates to alternatives such as check_docs. An agent must infer the usage context (e.g. pre-commit hygiene) from the check list alone.

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