Validate workspace YAML

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it 'only reads them and sends nothing anywhere' (safety/read-only), lists the validation categories (kinds, duplicate ids, placeholders, Power Fx prefixes, variable scopes, cross-file checks), and its relationship to cs_push. It stops short of return-value or severity/reporting behavior.

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 action and scoping, followed by the check inventory and the read-only note. The long parenthetical is dense but each item is informative; no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must establish safety and coverage, which it does via the read-only statement and the enumerated check categories. It leaves the shape of the validation report (severity, error list format) unspecified, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description implies scope ('every component file') but adds no syntax, path-format, or workspace-resolution detail beyond what 'file' and 'workspace' already say, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Structural validation of every component file against the Copilot Studio authoring schema') and enumerates the exact check classes it covers. An agent can distinguish it from cs_check_drift, cs_status, or cs_review_agent without opening any schema.

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 its purpose as answering 'is anything broken in these files?' and notes that 'cs_push runs it itself and blocks on errors', which tells the agent when this is redundant. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like cs_check_drift, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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