validate_r_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the categories of findings (structure, conflicts, secrets, unverified API claims), but says nothing about severity, whether findings block anything, or what a failing validation means.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a noun-phrase list without a complete subject-verb statement or any front-loaded usage cue.

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-value detail is not required, and the four check categories give a reasonable preview. However, for a validation tool the agent still lacks guidance on what input shape to supply and what to do with results, leaving noticeable gaps.

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?

There is one parameter (prompt_text) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its format, length limits, or whether it accepts raw prompt text versus a template name. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 ('Check') and enumerates the concrete checks performed — prompt structure, conflicts, possible secrets, unverified API claims — which makes the tool's purpose clear. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as improve_r_prompt or build_r_prompt, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to run validation versus improving (improve_r_prompt) or building (build_r_prompt) a prompt, and no preconditions. The agent must infer the workflow position from the tool name alone.

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