sculpt_spec_gate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that it validates the ObjectSculptSpec contract and complexity depth thresholds, and that this happens before coding. It does not explain failure behavior or return format, but for a read-only gate with annotations this is acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. No unnecessary words or repetitive content, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 validation tool with no output schema and an undocumented complex parameter, the description is incomplete. It gives purpose and timing but omits what the return value looks like (success/failure, details) and how to construct the 'spec' argument. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a significant gap 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no guidance on the single required 'spec' parameter, which is a complex object with arbitrary properties. The description must compensate for the lack of schema details but fails entirely, leaving agents without any hint of how to structure the spec.

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 uses the specific verb 'Validate' with a clear resource ('MCP runtime ObjectSculptSpec contract and canonical complexity depth thresholds') and temporal context ('before code is written'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as sculpt_pass_gate, which likely serves a different gating purpose.

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 description provides clear timing guidance ('before code is written') which implies when to use this tool in a workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the temporal context offers a solid usage signal.

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