metadata_listing_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists validation criteria but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, permission requirements, or side effects. The checks are purpose-level detail, not behavioral disclosure.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the target file and constraint list. It earns its length by covering several specific validation rules, though the run-on list could be slightly more scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description thoroughly covers validation rules, but with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, it omits parameter meaning and usage context, leaving it minimally adequate for a one-parameter validation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, app_dir. The description never mentions app_dir or explains how it maps to the 'store/metadata/listing.json' path, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 resource ('store/metadata/listing.json') and lists the exact constraints checked, so the agent knows this is a metadata listing validator. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like metadata_check or aso_validate_metadata, which is the only gap.

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?

The description says what is validated but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for use. An agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is common among the many validation siblings.

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