octane_validate_recipe_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it states what is validated, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether validation is read-only, what happens on failure, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a validation tool.

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, concise sentence that begins with the verb 'Validate'. It contains no redundant information and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers what the tool validates. However, more context on the 'recipe library' concept could help differentiate from many sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description adds meaning by specifying the validation scope (metadata, files, previews, command payloads), which compensates for the lack of parameter details.

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 verb 'Validate' and the resource 'checked-in recipe metadata, required files, previews, and command payloads'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like octane_validate_command and octane_validate_queue by specifying the scope as the recipe library.

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 this tool is for validating recipe library artifacts but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like octane_validate_command. No exclusions or contexts are mentioned.

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