validate_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail by mentioning optional payload hashing, but it does not explain what hashing implies or what additional effects it may have, such as performance cost or output differences.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource, then adds the optional behavior without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The output schema and annotations carry much of the context, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, it omits any guidance on when validation is needed and leaves the meaning of 'standard' versus 'full' ambiguous, which an agent would need to invoke the tool with full confidence.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the 'mode' parameter. The phrase 'optionally hash every payload' suggests that choosing a mode enables hashing, but it never explicitly maps 'standard' and 'full' to concrete behaviors. It adds partial meaning beyond the bare enum, but leaves the exact semantics underspecified.

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 a concrete resource ('manifests and schemas'), and it adds a distinct optional behavior ('optionally hash every payload'). This clearly separates it from the many sibling tools, none of which are described as validation tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use validate_workspace versus any alternative, nor does it mention prerequisites, typical invocation points, or what distinguishes the 'standard' and 'full' modes in practice. The agent is left to infer when validation is appropriate.

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