validate_references

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

Despite readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: returns [ERROR]/[MISSING] lines, summary format, recursive traversal, and token-saving defaults. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, zero fluff, front-loaded purpose. Every sentence conveys a distinct piece of actionable information (purpose, output format, depth usage, skip/verbose options).

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 read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description covers return format, parameter behavior, and recursion. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further clarification.

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 has 0% description coverage, so this description carries the full burden. It explains the purpose of depth, verbose, and ignore_optional with concrete examples, and 'under path' clarifies the path parameter. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Validate all ObjectReference fields under path recursively') and distinguishes this from sibling tools like lint_scene_refs or resolve_scene_refs. The verb and resource are crystal clear.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on parameter usage: 'Use depth=1 for quick top-level scan, depth=3-5 for full subtree', and explains verbose/ignore_optional to reduce noise. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling validation tools or state when to prefer this tool.

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