validate_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that output_dir must be within the output root and that the return value is structured JSON with keys {ok, errors, manifest_ok}, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that validation is non-destructive, what the validation actually checks, how errors are reported, or whether any manifest is required.

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 short and logically structured with a summary plus Args/Returns sections. It has almost no filler, though the opening repeats the tool name and the M6/C1 tag adds little without context.

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 single-parameter validation tool, the description covers purpose, the parameter, a key constraint, and the return shape. It is incomplete though: it does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings, what structural checks are performed, or the meaning of manifest_ok/errors beyond the key names. The presence of an output schema mitigates the return-format gap.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter, and it does: output_dir is the directory to validate, accepts absolute or relative paths, and must lie within the output root. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema type, though 'output root' is not defined and no example value is given.

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 the tool performs output structure validation ('输出结构校验') and identifies the target resource as a directory to validate. It is sufficiently distinct from the sibling extraction/inspection tools, though it is expressed as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource action and the M6/C1 shorthand is unexplained.

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 use this tool versus siblings such as inspect_document or health. The description provides a path constraint but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, so the agent must infer the tool's role from its name and context.

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