validate_bundle

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the tool reports two separate aspects (OKF conformance and project validity) and operates on either a single bundle or the full index, which is useful behavioral context.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and scope adequately. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned report (e.g., formats or fields), which could be helpful for an agent.

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?

Although the parameter 'bundle' is described in the schema as 'Optional bundle id to validate in isolation', the tool description adds critical context: if omitted, it validates the full current index. This clarifies the optional behavior beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Report') and resources ('OKF conformance', 'project validity') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'validate_project' by mentioning separate reporting. It also specifies the scope ('one bundle or the full current index').

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 implies when to use (for OKF conformance and project validity reports) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool recommendations. The distinction from 'validate_project' is implied but not directly stated.

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