mmla_validate_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: the '🚨 核心修正 1' section specifies a critical precondition (only GREEN nodes can validate), and it describes the 'use_agentic_loop' parameter's behavior (auto-fix with up to 16 retries). This goes beyond basic validation to include retry mechanisms and access controls, though it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by a critical warning, then parameter details, and return information. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, the emoji and non-English text ('🚨 核心修正 1') might slightly hinder clarity in some contexts.

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 tool's complexity (validation with conditional logic and retries), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, key behavioral constraints (GREEN node requirement), parameter semantics, and hints at the output ('JSON string with validation results'). It could improve by mentioning error cases or validation scope, but it's adequate for informed use.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for all three parameters: 'code' is 'The Python code to validate', 'node_id' is 'The MMLA node ID to validate against', and 'use_agentic_loop' is explained with 'If True, use Agentic Loop with auto-fix (up to 16 retries)'. This provides clear semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail formats or constraints for 'node_id'.

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's purpose: 'Validate code against MMLA specification.' It specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('code'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'mmla_create_node' or 'mmla_update_status' which have different functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from non-MMLA siblings like 'check_bluemouse_environment', though the MMLA focus is implied.

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 provides some usage context with '🚨 核心修正 1: 絕對門禁檢查 - 只有狀態為 GREEN 的節點才能進行代碼驗證', which implies prerequisites (node must be GREEN). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_requirement_trap' or 'check_bluemouse_environment', nor does it provide exclusions or clear alternatives within the MMLA context.

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