governance_validate_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that validation is 'exact' but does not explain what validation entails, whether it has side effects, what a successful/failed result looks like, or any required permissions. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise for the limited detail it provides.

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 complexity (two nested objects, exact validation semantics, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It omits validation criteria, return behavior, and edge cases. Even though an output schema exists, the description still fails to convey the tool's operational context and constraints.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'decision' as the returned decision and 'packet' as the exact task packet, providing minimal linkage, but it does not explain the structure, required fields, or how the matching is performed.

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's action ('Validate') and its specific object ('a returned decision against its exact task packet'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'governance_validate_task_packet' by focusing on the decision rather than the packet, though it doesn't explicitly call out that alternative.

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 phrase 'returned decision' implies the tool is used after a decision has been produced, giving some context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like governance_validate_task_packet or governance_evaluate_gate.

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