Validate portal integrity (read-only)

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant detail: it enumerates specific checks (malformed records, dangling references, unscoped SQL, datasource hygiene) and explicitly states 'Fixes nothing'. This elaborates on the read-only nature 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?

The description is well-structured, starting with the action and listing categories. It is somewhat long but each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy: 'report anything that would break or render wrong' then lists specifics. Still, efficient for the detail provided.

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 complexity of the tool (many checks) and no output schema, the description does not specify the output format (e.g., structure of issues, counts, severity). The agent may need to infer how results are returned. Somewhat incomplete for a comprehensive validation tool.

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 has one optional parameter 'limit' with a description that explains it caps issues returned. The tool description does not add any further parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it sweeps all portal components to report structural issues, dangling references, mass-write SQL, and datasource hygiene. The title 'Validate portal integrity (read-only)' reinforces the purpose. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_block' which likely validates a single block.

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?

Description says 'run it after bulk changes or on a schedule to catch latent breakage before users do', providing clear context. It also states 'Fixes nothing', which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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