validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly: runtime in seconds, prerequisites (Linux/WSL2, Docker, containerlab, root-equivalent rights), platform limitations, and failure semantics. It also clarifies that INCONCLUSIVE and setup errors say nothing about the actual change and warns against weakening checks.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return behavior, then layers in usage, prerequisites, and failure handling. It is somewhat long for a one-parameter tool and includes sibling-focused details such as dry-run duration and ping rationale, but most sentences still earn their 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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: prerequisites, usage policy, failure handling, retry limits, and escalation to record_baseline. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears absent.

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% for the single required `path` parameter. The description identifies it as the location of netdryrun.yml, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not specify path format, whether relative paths are allowed, or file-existence expectations.

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 first sentence names the specific action (validate netdryrun.yml at path), what it does not do (without starting a lab), and what it is not (not a verdict; run dry_run next). This clearly distinguishes it from the dry_run sibling and tells an agent exactly what resource is being validated.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: before proposing or applying any routing or policy change. It names alternatives and next steps: run dry_run next, and call record_baseline if no checks exist. It also gives clear stop/retry guidance for INCONCLUSIVE results.

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