check_uns_namespace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses no auth/account/key requirement, local-only execution ('nothing is sent anywhere'), the return shape (summary line plus per-issue fail/warn/pass/info findings), and the scope boundary. It never explicitly states read-only/idempotent behavior, though 'check' and 'nothing is sent anywhere' strongly imply it.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and the check taxonomy before moving to usage, guarantees, and exclusions. It is on the long side, but each clause adds routing or behavioral value, so there is little waste.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return format, the execution model, the scope limits, and when to reach for it. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the results.

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 100% and the single parameter's schema already documents the string-or-array oneOf form with a per-line convention. The description body adds no further syntax, size limits, or encoding detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting — the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (Unified Namespace topic paths) and enumerates the exact class of problems it detects (hierarchy depth, casing, whitespace, case-collisions, duplicates, empty levels, wildcards). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling lint_sparkplug_topic, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering contexts (reviewing a proposed namespace, an ISA-95 hierarchy, a broker topic dump, a tag export) plus timing guidance (before anyone builds on top of it). It also names the exclusion and the alternative: it does not validate Sparkplug grammar, use lint_sparkplug_topic instead.

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