clinical_ai_validate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool enforces specific headline rules (autonomy, SaMD, FDA, PHI, bias_audit). This gives good behavioral context beyond a simple 'validate' statement. It does not mention side effects, but validation is typically read-only.

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 two sentences: the first states the main action, the second lists the enforced rules. No redundant or wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description explains the validation logic well. However, it does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure, error details). This is a minor gap for a validation tool.

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?

The schema already describes the parameter as 'Clinical AI Card as inline JSON.' The tool description adds meaning by specifying the schema version (v0.1) and the headline rules enforced, which goes beyond the schema definition.

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 clearly states it validates a Clinical AI Card JSON document against a v0.1 schema and lists specific enforced rules. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clinical_ai_fetch or clinical_ai_inspect by focusing on validation.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for validation against a schema, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools for other card types, it provides clear context for its use case.

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