aso_validate_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does not say what is validated, whether a failure is fatal, whether it mutates anything, or what errors look like. An output schema exists, which covers return structure, but the validation behavior itself is undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good. But it is terse to the point of under-specification given everything it leaves unaddressed.

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?

With an output schema the return values need no prose, but two undocumented required parameters, zero annotations, and a crowded sibling set of validators make this far too thin. An agent lacks enough to select or invoke it confidently.

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 0% and neither of the two required parameters (app_name, base_dir) is documented anywhere. The path fragment "outputs/<App>" loosely hints that app_name slots into a directory, but base_dir's role and expected format are entirely unexplained.

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") and a concrete resource (the apple-metadata.md file), which is more than a tautology. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from sibling validators like metadata_check, metadata_listing_check, or pipeline_validate, so an agent cannot tell which validator applies.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the many sibling validation tools. The agent must guess at the workflow position and prerequisites on its own.

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