validate_tonel_smalltalk_from_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose side effects (likely none), what happens on validation failure, or any return format beyond what the output schema might imply. The description is too brief to convey behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without extra words.

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 availability of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important contextual details like expected file extensions, error handling behavior, or how validation results are returned. For a validation tool, this gap is notable.

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 100%, and the description largely repeats schema descriptions for both parameters. For 'options', it adds a minor example ('without-method-body'), but this is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra meaning is added.

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 it validates Tonel Smalltalk source code from a file. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_tonel_smalltalk or lint_tonel_smalltalk_from_file, which likely operate differently.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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