validate.check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions 'lightweight', implying speed or thoroughness, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or return format. Essential behavioral context is missing.

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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief and lacks structure; it does not include a parameter description, usage notes, or result explanation. It is concise but under-specified.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the check entails, what output to expect, or how to use the parameter. The agent needs more context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has a single parameter ('path') with no description and allows additional properties. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or clarify the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('run') and the resource ('lightweight syntax/config check'). The verb 'run' and the term 'syntax/config check' provide a basic understanding, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate.diff or validate.load.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this check is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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