ybiz_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure. The reference to 'rules from documentation' is vague and does not clarify the actual behavior. This is a significant gap for a validation tool that could be read-only but is not stated.

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, short sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary details, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one. For what it includes, it is efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) and one optional parameter, but the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the workspace parameter does, what the validation output looks like, or how the 'rules from documentation' are applied. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without additional context, especially regarding the workspace parameter's influence on 'all branches'.

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 one optional parameter 'workspace' with zero description coverage (0%). The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its meaning and effect entirely undefined. The description does not add any meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb ('проверка' = checking/validating) and a specific resource ('всех филиалов' = all branches), and mentions the method (XSD + documentation rules). It distinguishes from siblings like ybiz_status or ybiz_list_branches by focusing on validation rather than status or listing. However, it does not specify what 'validate' entails (e.g., schema compliance, business rules), so it is clear but not fully precise.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where validation is appropriate. The only implicit hint is the purpose of validation, but it does not tell an agent when to choose this over ybiz_diff or ybiz_build, for example.

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