validate_scenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with the concrete claim that no service is called, which is meaningful additional context for a validator. It stops short of saying what a failure looks like, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the input forms in parentheses and a short scoping clause. Nothing is redundant and the enumeration of checks is compact.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers inputs and scope of validation adequately. The remaining gap is the optional-parameter contract (behavior when both path and content are omitted), which the description leaves silent.

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%, so the description has to carry the weight, and it does: 'path' is clarified as accepting a file OR a folder (real meaning the schema lacks), and 'content' as the inline alternative. It does not state that at least one of the two must be supplied, despite zero required parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('scenario YAML'), then enumerates the checks performed: structure, services, assertion syntax, JSONPath, and variable ordering. 'Does not call any service' implicitly separates it from run_scenario, though it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the pairing.

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 accepted input shapes (file, folder, inline content) and the no-side-effect nature imply a pre-flight/static-check usage, but there is no explicit 'use this before run_scenario' or statement of when-not to use it. The agent can infer the workflow but is not routed to it.

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