validate_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states whether validation is read-only, what it returns on failure (errors list? boolean?), whether it throws or reports, or what happens when atlas/texture are empty strings. For a no-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and the scope front-loaded. It is concise, though its brevity edges toward under-specification for a validation tool.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the required runtime_json undocumented and says nothing about the shape of validation results. An agent can guess the intent but not how to call or interpret it reliably.

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 compensate. It mentions atlas and texture as validated targets, which loosely maps to two of the three parameters, but the required parameter runtime_json is never explained and no parameter formats or default-empty-string behavior are described.

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 ('Validate') and resource ('references') and enumerates the reference kinds checked (bone, slot, skin, IK, atlas, texture, animation), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling validate_motion or from spine_doctor, so an agent cannot tell which validator to pick from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as validate_motion or spine_doctor. The agent is left to infer that this belongs in a build/export validation step.

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