celebrum.validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool runs the validation harness but does not say whether it is read-only, how long it runs, what output it produces, or whether it has side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and the parenthetical list adds useful specificity without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter structure, the description is the only information source. It explains what the tool runs but not what the result looks like, what each component validates, or when an agent should choose it over siblings. This leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with no other structured context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is required for 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 names a specific resource (the neural validation harness) and lists its component suites (BRIDGE, ID-RAG, etc.), making its purpose reasonably clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but 'validate' is semantically distinct from recall, simulate, and guardrail actions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run validation versus using sibling tools like simulate or recall. The description lists what the harness includes but offers no conditional logic, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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