sdd_validate

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds value by stating the output includes a confidence check and allowed transitions, which goes beyond structured annotations. It does not contradict annotations and adds helpful context about what the validation result contains.

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 extremely concise, two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the action and purpose, then immediately states the return value. 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?

Given one parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the output (validation result, confidence check, allowed transitions) which is useful. It could explain what 'phase schema' means, but that is likely domain-specific and understood from sibling tools. Overall, adequate for a simple validation tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'contract' is described in the schema itself as 'JSON string of the SDD contract to validate'. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (SDD contract), and the purpose (against the phase schema). It returns a validation result with confidence and transitions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle boards, tasks, files, or other SDD operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sdd_save or tb_status. The description implies validation before some phase transition but does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. This is a clear gap.

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