Validate workspace YAML

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the tool only reads files and sends nothing anywhere (safety profile), and that cs_push invokes it and blocks on errors. It stops short of describing the failure/report shape (e.g., whether it throws or returns a findings list), which would matter for an agent acting on results.

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 core purpose, then a parenthetical enumeration of checks, then the usage/relationship sentence. Every sentence carries information; the parenthetical is dense but each item is substantive rather than filler.

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 and no annotations, the description covers what is validated, that it is side-effect free, and how it relates to cs_push. The main gap is the shape of the result an agent must interpret, but otherwise the definition is sufficient to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (file, workspace) are already documented in the schema. The description adds scope information ('every component file', 'cross-file checks') but says nothing about the file-vs-workspace selection semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Structural validation of every component file') and enumerates exactly what is checked: schema kinds, unknown/missing properties, duplicate ids, placeholders, Power Fx prefixes, variable scopes, plus cross-file checks. This is far more specific than the sibling cs_check_solution or cs_check_drift, and an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Frames the use case crisply ('is anything broken in these files?') and names the related tool cs_push, noting it runs validation itself and blocks on errors. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling checks like cs_check_solution or cs_check_drift, leaving some routing to inference.

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