Validate Tonel Smalltalk File

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds crucial context about the 'without-method-body' option, explaining that it only validates tonel structure, which is not evident from annotations. This goes beyond the schema by giving the behavioral condition under which the tool is less thorough. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that is neither too short nor too verbose. It provides the essential information without waste. It is well-structured for a simple tool, and 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?

Given the tool has a clear schema, an output schema, and good annotations, the description is adequate. It could mention that it returns validation results, but the output schema likely covers that. There are no other complexities that require more detail.

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 both parameters are described in the schema. The `options` description includes the specific 'without-method-body' flag, which is helpful. The description text itself does not add further parameter info, but the schema is already rich, so a baseline of 3 plus the extra detail in the schema justifies a 4.

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 is precise: it says 'Validate Tonel formatted Smalltalk source code from a file.' This clearly states the action (validate), the resource (Tonel formatted Smalltalk source code), and the source (from a file). It also distinguishes it from siblings like validate_tonel_smalltalk (which likely takes a string) and lint_tonel_smalltalk (which lints rather than validates).

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 usage for validating a file, which is clear. It does not explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives, but the 'from_file' suffix and the sibling names make it obvious. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, but the context is sufficient. Could be improved with a phrase like 'use this when the source is a file'; however, it is otherwise clear.

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