Validate a game server Dockerfile and port config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value beyond them: it enumerates the concrete failure classes detected (ARM/Windows images, root Unreal, missing -batchmode -nographics, localhost binding, EXPOSE/version port mismatch, protocol/netcode mismatch, 'latest' tag, bad CPU/memory ratios) and states 'Makes no API calls,' which confirms it is a local static check. It stops short of describing the returned report.

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 and timing are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a dense but well-ordered list of concrete failure modes rather than vague hedging. It is long, but nearly every clause names a distinct, actionable check, so little is wasted.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema validation tool, the description conveys purpose, timing, alternative routing, and the failure classes it catches. The main gap is the shape of the result (pass/fail report, list of issues) and how the optional params like docker_image/docker_repository feed the check.

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 only 44%, so several parameters (cpu_units, memory_mb, docker_tag, docker_image, docker_repository) carry no explanation anywhere. The description partially compensates by telling the agent to pass the Dockerfile text (read from disk first) and by conveying the port/netcode relationship that drives validation, but it adds little for the remaining unlabeled params. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial 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 (validate/check) and resource (game server Dockerfile plus ports/resources) scoped against Edgegap's requirements. It explicitly distinguishes itself from edgegap_generate_dockerfile and from the build/push/version/deploy flow, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and does not do.

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 timing ('BEFORE building and pushing') and a clear branch condition with an alternative ('If there is no Dockerfile yet, call edgegap_generate_dockerfile instead'). This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use / alternative structure.

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