aplomo_validate_abstraction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the core evaluation criterion — reuse or responsibility/lifecycle justification — as behavioral context for what makes an abstraction acceptable. It does not describe the outcome format or rejection behavior, but the annotations reduce the need for mutation/side-effect disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It delivers the core policy in a compact, scannable form and every word contributes to meaning. The brevity is a strength, even though some of that brevity creates ambiguity elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema, the agent cannot tell whether validation returns a boolean, an explanation, or an error. The phrase 'lifecycle justification' is undefined, and the relationship between the 'reuse' criterion and the required 'responsibility' parameter is left unclear. For a validation tool, the pass/fail behavior is essential missing context.

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 for explaining parameters, but it only loosely maps to them. It mentions 'responsibility/lifecycle justification' without clarifying the required 'responsibility' field or the optional 'justification' field, and it never explains 'proposed_name' or how 'reuse' maps to a parameter. This is insufficient semantic help for an agent invoking the tool.

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 an explicit policy gate: 'Require reuse or an explicit responsibility/lifecycle justification before adding an abstraction.' This makes clear the tool validates or rejects abstraction proposals and distinguishes it from sibling review tools by focusing specifically on adding abstractions. It stops short of a 5 because the action verb is somewhat implicit and the description reads more like a rule than a behavioral specification.

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 phrase 'before adding an abstraction' gives a clear temporal trigger for when this tool should be used. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer how this differs from aplomo_review_architecture or aplomo_review_plan. This is implied usage guidance rather than explicit routing.

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