dialectic_validate_status

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 only lists return fields and does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral impact.

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 conveys the key information without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though it could be slightly more natural in phrasing.

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 simple status tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic return data. However, it lacks usage context and does not leverage the existence of an output schema to provide deeper insight into the returned structure.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that with no contradictions.

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 enumerates the returned data: validator config, pending observation count, and last 5 passes. It indicates a read/status function, though it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It distinguishes from sibling 'dialectic_validate_run' by implying it is a status check rather than an execution.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dialectic_validate_run' or 'dialectic_observation_resolve'. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the nature of the returned data.

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