browser_validate_skill

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses validation logic (admit only if probe fully passes), side effects (demoting stale skills to STALE and recording gotchas), and emphasizes 'validated learning' that a replay cache cannot do. Lacks details on authorization or rate limits but adequately covers core 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?

Description is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, explaining the step context, admission criteria, and side effects. Front-loaded with 'ACTIVE MEMORY (step 2 of 2)' and uses capitals for emphasis. Could be more concise, but not overly long.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (validation gate with peer regression), description covers essential behavior: what it does, admission criteria, side effects, and return values (admit/reject decision, probe results, peer regressions). No output schema, but mentions return types. Lacks definition of 'probe' but overall complete for a step-by-step tool.

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?

Only one parameter 'name' with schema description 'The candidate skill name to validate.' Since schema coverage is 100% and description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: replay a candidate skill against the live site, check probe, admit only if passes, and re-check existing skills for drift. The verb 'validate' is specific, the resource 'skill' is clear, and it distinguishes from siblings like browser_replay and browser_propose_skill.

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?

Description explicitly positions this as 'step 2 of 2 — THE GATE', implying it is the final validation step. It explains the admission decision and peer regression check. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the context of replay cache.

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