validate_run

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 does not disclose whether validation is read-only, what happens on invalid recipes, whether external contracts are fetched, or any side effects. The scope 'all referenced contracts' is useful but does not cover behavioral traits.

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 focused, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's scope.

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 required string parameter and an output schema, the core operation is stated. However, important context is missing: usage order relative to plan_run/start_run, what 'referenced contracts' means, and what the validation result looks like. The lack of annotations makes this more noticeable.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It connects recipe_path to the Run Recipe being validated and mentions referenced contracts, giving some meaning. However, it does not specify path format, resolution behavior, or constraints beyond the schema's required flag.

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 a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('one Run Recipe and all referenced contracts'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from siblings like plan_run and start_run, which imply execution rather than 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use validate_run versus alternatives such as plan_run, start_run, or doctor. The intended pipeline ordering is only implied by the tool name and sibling context, not stated.

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