validate_plan

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

With no annotations, the description provides the important behavioral guarantee of no side effects ('without starting any work'), but it does not disclose other characteristics such as return behavior, network/IO dependencies, or how validation errors are reported. Adds some value but remains limited.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key safety property. No wasted words.

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 tool has a simple schema and output schema, but with no annotations, the description should provide more guidance. It covers the no-side-effect property but omits repository semantics and any validation behavior. Adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must clarify both parameters. It only clarifies 'manifest' as a YAML execution manifest, while 'repository' is undefined. This leaves a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 (validate), the resource (YAML execution manifest), and the key constraint (without starting any work). This distinguishes it from submit_plan and other siblings.

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 phrase 'without starting any work' implies a use case of pre-flight checking before execution, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this rather than submit_plan. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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