validate_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds one meaningful behavioral trait: the tool returns detailed validation results rather than a simple flag, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies assets), error behavior, or performance implications. The lack of an explicit read-only hint leaves the safety profile under-defined.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key output detail. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is relatively simple with two optional, well-documented parameters, and the description covers its primary behavior and output clearly. However, it omits information about what validators are used, how to interpret the breakdown, or any caveats like invalid directories. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is a minor gap but does not impair fundamental usability for straightforward use cases.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and directory) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional value is contributed.

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 specifies the action (run data validation) and resource (assets in a directory), and explicitly distinguishes its output from a mere completion flag by stating it returns pass/fail counts and a per-validator breakdown. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like get_test_results or run_automation_tests, which focus on test execution rather than validation results.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools that perform similar validation tasks (e.g., run_map_check or content_audit). This leaves the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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