incident_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the enforced conditional rules, which is good, but omits behavioral details such as side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, or the format of validation results (e.g., pass/fail, error messages).

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 highly concise with two sentences: one for the primary purpose and one enumerating the conditional rules. Every sentence adds essential information, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the validation logic in sufficient detail. However, it could be improved by briefly noting the return value (e.g., success/error object), though this is often inferred for validation tools.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The parameter 'document_json' is described as 'Incident Card as inline JSON,' which clarifies the format but does not elaborate on constraints like encoding or size limits.

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 the tool validates an AI Incident Card JSON against a specific schema (v0.1) and lists conditional rules. The verb-resource pairing is precise, and it distinguishes itself from sibling validators for other card types (e.g., agent_card_validate, tool_card_validate).

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 usage for validating incident cards but fails to provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like incident_fetch or incident_inspect, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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