validate_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces with 'Read-only: no tasks run and nothing is written.' Additionally, it describes the full return object including issues with level, message, line, step, hint. No contradiction; adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words. First sentence gives core function, second explains invocation, third details return value, fourth states safety. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents the return structure. Annotations cover safety. The tool has low complexity (one param, no nested objects). The description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation, including guidance on when to use it relative to siblings.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'path' described). The description restates 'Give the file `path`' but adds no new semantics or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates a workflow YAML file without running it, and gives the return structure. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting 'without running it' and provides specific use cases like checking before running or explaining malformations. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to check a workflow the agent authored or edited before running it, or to explain why a workflow is malformed.' This gives two clear scenarios and implies it is for validation only, contrasting with the sibling tools (list, dry_run, run). No ambiguity.

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