ASO Validate Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by specifying the validation scope (fields and character limits) and the failure payload shape {ok, problems: [...]}, which tells the agent this can return a non-fatal negative result rather than throwing.

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 compact labeled blocks (action, Use when, Returns) with the artifact path front-loaded. Every sentence carries routing or contract information; there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only validator with a full output schema, the agent has the target file, the required inputs, the sibling alternatives, and the result contract. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates them at a high level ('by app name and base dir') without adding format, path-resolution, or default semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus the exact artifact it operates on (outputs/<App>/02-metadata/apple-metadata.md) and the validation dimension (fields and character limits). This is distinguishable from metadata_check and aso_complete without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the 'when' condition ('checking ASO output by app name and base dir') and routes to two alternatives with their selecting conditions: metadata_check for an arbitrary file, aso_complete to mark the stage done. Nothing is left to inference.

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