validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no code is executed and explicitly labels the tool safe for untrusted claims, which are key behavioral traits. However, it omits the expected return format, error behavior, and any side effects (beyond implying read-only). This is adequate but not comprehensive for an unannotated tool.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and safety disclaimer are front-loaded, and argument types follow immediately. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema, the description should explain what a successful or failed validation looks like (e.g., return value). It also omits any assumptions about file existence or claim format constraints. Given the tool's narrow scope, it's moderately complete but leaves the agent guessing about 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates 'claim (claim JSON text)' and 'claim_path (absolute file path)' without adding new meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies the input types but adds marginal value over the existing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool checks a claim's structure and anchor/frozen hashes without executing code. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the resource. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings (self_test, verify), the safety note and 'WITHOUT executing any code' hint at differentiation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides context (safe for untrusted claims) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify or self_test. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from name alone.

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