validate_branching_logic

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it checks every field's branching_logic for invalid [field_name] tokens, excludes event_name syntax in longitudinal projects, and returns either a confirmation or a JSON object with broken references. This is substantial transparency about what gets validated and what the output looks like.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line summary, followed by two detailed paragraphs explaining the check and the return value. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 no-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description fully covers behavior, exclusions, and return format. It provides all needed context for an agent to understand what the tool does without digging into structured data.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details since none exist.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Scan all branching logic expressions for references to non-existent fields.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_field_references by focusing solely on branching_logic expressions.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it (to validate branching logic references), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. There's no guidance on how it differs from similar validation tools like check_field_references.

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