Guided Validate

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

The description discloses important side effects: validators can be dispatched, are capped by limit, go through the control plane for scope/rate/budget/approval, and may file their own findings if they prove something. It also states that manual/none classes do not dispatch and instead return a checklist.

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 somewhat verbose and repeats the idea of returning a checklist versus dispatching, but it is organized and each sentence carries meaningful behavior. It is longer than necessary but not distractingly so.

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?

The description covers the main behavior, return type, and side effects, and mentions the control plane approval requirement. It does not describe the exact output schema, but the narrative summary plus the provided output-schema signal is likely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool.

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 description explains vuln_class, asset, and limit, but stack and evidence are not described at all. Since the schema has zero description coverage, the description needed to clarify all parameters and only partially does so.

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 tool runs validators for a given vulnerability class against an asset, and differentiates it from research_guidance by going one step further to execution. It names the primary inputs and the action taken.

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 explains when to use this tool: when you want to execute the validators associated with a vulnerability class on an asset. It also notes that manual/none validation classes return an evidence checklist instead of dispatching, giving useful selection guidance, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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