validate_package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that this is a local operation with no API call, lists all checks performed (recipe lint, JSON parsing, project.json warning, config file resolution), and fully specifies the return structure including the diagnostic shape. This gives the agent a complete behavioral picture.

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?

The description is information-dense but efficiently structured. It front-loads the key distinction (LOCAL, before deploy, NO API call), then enumerates checks and return format. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one minimal schema parameter and no output schema, the description provides a rich and complete picture: it names the rule engine, the package-level checks, and the exact return object. It even references lint_recipe for shared rule details. This is more than sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that 'path' refers to a package DIRECTORY, which is critical for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly state the path format (absolute/relative) or reinforce that it is required, leaving some ambiguity for the single parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool performs a LOCAL lint of a package directory before deploy, with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from lint_recipe (which lints individual recipes) and deploy_package by noting it is a pre-deploy, no-API-call validation.

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 phrase 'before deploy' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the mention of 'NO API call' implies it is the local alternative to remote deploy checks. It also references lint_recipe for the rule set, but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or name specific exclusions.

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