ASO Complete

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the gate-opening side effect and the refusal-with-missing-items outcome on failure. It does not clarify whether validation failure leaves any partial state, which is the one remaining ambiguity for a mutating 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?

Three short, front-loaded clauses: action, usage routing, and return shape. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the routing rule, and the side effect on the pipeline gate. Return values are already captured by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents app_dir fully. The description adds no format or path semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully-covered single parameter.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('Validate the ASO output') and goes further by stating the state transition it performs ('mark the 'aso' stage done, opening the metadata/deliver gate'). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling pipeline_mark, so an agent can distinguish them 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use when: ASO files are written') and an explicit exclusion with an alternative ('Not for: other stages (use pipeline_mark)'). This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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