Validate Smalltalk Method Body

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

The description adds little beyond annotations: it states validation for syntax correctness, aligning with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It does not detail error reporting or side effects, but annotations already cover safety; description adds minimal value.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and the tool's core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simplicity, one parameter, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but could mention what constitutes a 'method body' (e.g., without method signature) or what validation errors look like, but not required due to output schema presence.

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 100% coverage (the only parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'method body content as a string', but schema is sufficient.

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 validates a Smalltalk method body for syntax correctness, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that validate/lint entire Tonel files, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 implies the tool is for validating a method body snippet, but does not explicitly say when to use it versus validating entire files. It lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions, though the context is clear enough for a simple tool.

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