task_validate

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a validation pass, and the description usefully scopes what is checked. However it says nothing about what a failure looks like — whether it reports violations, throws, or blocks subsequent writes — which is the behavior an agent most needs from a validator.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with the target first and the three validated dimensions listed compactly. No filler.

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?

With no params and no output schema, the description is the only source for the result contract, and it omits it — an agent does not know whether success is signaled by an empty result, a boolean, or a list of violations. Adequate to call, incomplete to interpret.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly does not invent any. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (validate) and resource (tasks.json) and enumerates the three checks performed: schema, status transitions and evidence gates. That is far more informative than the bare name, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly scoped quality_check sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the pre-flight/verification step among the task_* mutation tools, but nothing states when to run it (before commit? after task_update?) or that quality_check is the alternative for content-quality concerns.

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