Validate library asset

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds rich detail: deep_roundtrip runs in an 'authenticated disposable quarantine bridge on a non-9980 port', uses a 'structured loadTox-only job with bounded polling and verified scratch cleanup', and clarifies 'offline evidence is UNVERIFIED, never PASS.' This significantly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second packs the deep-mode behavior and result interpretation ('offline evidence is UNVERIFIED, never PASS') into a single dense sentence. 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 the tool's complexity (nested deep object, no output schema), the description gives a solid behavioral overview but omits return-value specifics beyond the UNVERIFIED note. It also does not explain the deep sub-parameters or failure modes. Still, the core purpose and mode distinction are well covered, making it reasonably 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 compensate. It explains path (local library asset), manifest_path (optional manifest), and validation_mode (static/deep_roundtrip), and hints that deep_roundtrip requires an 'absolute .tox' and quarantine port. However, the many sub-parameters of the deep object (max_nodes, timeout_ms, expected_contract, etc.) are not described, leaving a coverage gap.

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 states a specific action: 'Check that a local library asset exists and is referenced by an optional manifest.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings that validate operator chains or checksums, and identifies the resource and scope.

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 description provides clear context on mode selection: 'default static mode preserves the cheap filesystem check' vs 'Opt-in deep_roundtrip' for more thorough validation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of full guidance.

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