Alcove

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return format (pass/warn/fail status per file) and validation logic, but omits safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), side effects (does it write logs?), and error handling (what if policy.toml is missing?). 'Validate' implies read-only but should be explicit.

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, zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose and policy reference. Second sentence lists specific checks and return format. Front-loaded with actionable verb and efficiently structured.

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?

Good coverage given zero parameters and no output schema. Describes validation criteria and return structure adequately. Minor gap: doesn't specify project selection mechanism (likely context-dependent) or behavior when policy.toml is absent.

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?

Zero parameters per schema. Baseline 4 applied per rubric (0 params = baseline 4). Description correctly omits parameter discussion as none exist; no compensation needed.

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?

Excellent specificity: states exact verb (validate), resource (project docs), scope (against policy.toml), and enumerates four distinct validation checks (files, placeholders, sections, list items). Clearly distinguishes from sibling `audit_project` by focusing on policy.toml compliance rather than general auditing.

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?

Provides implied usage through specific check enumeration, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from siblings like `check_doc_changes` (which likely checks modifications) or `audit_project` (which likely checks broader compliance). No prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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