Validate EARS Requirements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns per-requirement compliance with actionable suggestions, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It is consistent and adds marginal context.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose with specific patterns, and efficiently explains input modes and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a validation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input modes, and output summary (per-requirement compliance with suggestions). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly, though the return format could be more explicit.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description summarizes the input modes but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 states the tool validates requirement statements against EARS notation patterns and lists the patterns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sdd_validate_iac by focusing specifically on EARS requirements.

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 explains the two input modes (direct list vs. SPECIFICATION.md) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While the context signals show siblings for different validations, the description itself lacks this differentiation.

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