pipeline_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does NOT modify the manifest (a read-only/validation effect), which is the most important trait here. However, it does not describe failure behavior, whether it errors or returns a status, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its key constraint, then the motivating use case. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose and usage adequately. But with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent lacks guidance on what 'stage' and 'app_dir' must contain to invoke it correctly.

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 0% and there are two required parameters (app_dir, stage). The description only obliquely references 'a stage,' leaving 'stage' format/uniqueness and 'app_dir' entirely undefined in both schema and description. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run a stage's enforced gate') and explicitly carves out the non-mutating scope ('WITHOUT modifying the manifest'). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like pipeline_mark, though the term 'enforced gate' is project jargon an agent must infer.

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 clear usage context: 'For orchestrator/subagent self-checks: does the gate pass before marking it done?' This tells the agent when to call it (pre-marking self-check) and implicitly positions pipeline_mark as the alternative. No explicit exclusions or named alternative tool, so not a 5.

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