eco_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape {ok, problems} and the validation logic, but does not state whether the call is read-only, mutates state, or requires permissions. That is a notable gap for a validation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and checks. The parenthetical issue reference and 'cheap front door' are minor noise, but the description is otherwise tight and well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description helpfully states the return shape. For a validator, the key missing piece is confirming read-only behavior (no annotations to do so) and what a 'problem' entry looks like. Still, it is complete enough to call 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 the single eco parameter is an untyped object, so the description must compensate. It names required components (schema stamp, id, affected item set, disposition, effectivity with exactly one of date|serial|revision), which adds real meaning, but exact field names and structure remain unspecified.

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 'ECO record', and enumerates the exact checks performed (schema stamp, id/affected items, disposition, effectivity). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling ECO tools like eco_create or change_impact, so it falls short of the 5 mark.

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?

'Cheap front door' implies pre-validation before heavier operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The implied context is thin, so a 3 is warranted.

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