validate-design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates or persists anything, what happens on failure, or what constitutes a passing vs. failing validation.

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 short sentence with no filler; appropriately sized for a simple tool. It is front-loaded with the verb, though it says too little rather than too much.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a validator the description should still convey what 'required sections' means and the expected input. Given the presence of several near-identical validate_* siblings, this description leaves key context missing.

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% for the single required parameter 'feature_name', and the description does not mention it at all. It is unclear whether it expects a feature identifier, a path, or a spec slug — the description fails to compensate for the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Valida as seções necessárias do design técnico'), so the purpose is discernible. However, it gives no differentiation from siblings like validate_spec, validate-gap, or spec-design, leaving the agent unsure which validator applies to a given artifact.

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 at all on when to use this tool versus validate_spec/validate-gap, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g. that a technical design must already exist). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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