bw_adso_validate_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the intent to validate existence but does not reveal the response format (e.g., boolean, error), side effects (likely none, but not stated), or behavior when the template ADSO does not exist. This is a significant gap for a validation tool.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the key action and object, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter validation tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks any information about the return value or error behavior, and does not explain when this validation is needed or how it integrates with other ADSO operations. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves essential operational details undefined.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'name', so the description must explain it. It does not explicitly state that 'name' is the template ADSO name, nor does it clarify format or naming conventions. The connection is implied but not stated, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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) and the object (that a template ADSO exists). It is specific to template ADSOs, distinguishing it from validation tools for new names, info areas, or other object types. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other validation tools like bw_adso_validate_new_name or bw_area_validate_exists. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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