governance_validate_task_packet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is non-mutating ('without dispatching or approving'), which is helpful. However, it does not explain what validation entails (e.g., criteria, side effects) or what the response contains. The output schema likely covers return format, but the description alone leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 sentence of eleven words that gets straight to the point. It front-loads the action and adds a critical qualifier ('without dispatching or approving it') without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward validation tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps. It does not explain the structure or purpose of the 'packet' parameter, nor the nature of the validation (e.g., what is checked, what a valid result looks like). The tool is simple, but the lack of parameter semantics makes it less complete than it could be.

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%: the sole parameter 'packet' is an untyped object with no description, and the tool description never mentions it. While 'Validate a proposed agent task' might imply that 'packet' is the task, this is not explicit, and there is no guidance on its structure, required fields, or accepted formats. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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 verb 'validate' and the resource 'a proposed agent task', and explicitly distinguishes this tool from those that dispatch or approve by adding 'without dispatching or approving it'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling 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 phrase 'without dispatching or approving it' establishes a clear usage context, implying this tool is for pre-decision validation before any commitment. It does not name specific alternative tools, but it implies the boundary of when to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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