validate_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It declares the tool is 'Read-only', indicating no destructive side effects. However, it does not specify behavior on invalid input (e.g., missing output_dir) or failure modes, nor the outcomes of validation (e.g., errors vs. success).

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and free of extraneous content. However, it could be slightly improved by listing the gates in a more structured manner (e.g., bullet points), though current form is still clear.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately states the tool's job but lacks details on return values (does it output a report?), error handling, or relationship with siblings like validate_project. It is minimally sufficient for an agent but leaves gaps.

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 low (33%: only rescan_manifest has inline description). The tool description mentions the validation gates but does not explain the meaning of 'output_dir' (default 'output'), 'strictness' (integer 0-4), or how parameters interact. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb 'Run post-run validation gates' and the resource 'completed output directory', listing the specific gates (manifest, metrics, run_summary). It also specifies 'Read-only', distinguishing it from mutation tools. This differentiates from sibling tool 'validate_project' which likely validates project configuration.

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 implies usage after a run is completed ('post-run'), but does not explicitly state when to use, when not to use, or mention alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions for invoking this tool.

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