validate_addon

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

The phrase 'static checks' suggests a non-mutating review and the listed check categories add useful transparency. However, with no annotations, the description still does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or any requirements on the generated files. It partially carries the behavioral burden but not fully.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately enumerates the specific checks, making it easy to scan.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It covers the core purpose but omits parameter semantics, expected input format, and output behavior, so an agent could not confidently construct valid calls.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, yet it does not explain the required 'requirement' parameter or the 'guardrails' array. 'Guardrails' is mentioned only as a check category, not as an input, leaving both parameters underspecified.

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 names a concrete action ('Run the 7 static checks') and a clear target ('generated files'), and it enumerates the check categories. This makes the tool's purpose obvious and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_addon, save_addon, or explain_tradeoffs.

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 phrase 'over generated files' implies this tool should be used after generation, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives such as generate_addon or save_addon. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the usage context mostly to inference.

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