validate_tester_ini

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (sanity-check, conditional cross-check) but omits details like read-only nature, error handling, side effects, or output format. The description is too sparse for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 highly concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. The core action and conditional behavior are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the return value (e.g., validation errors or success), input format for `config`, or any post-conditions. A more complete description would address these gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only addresses `source` (optional, triggers cross-check) but does not describe `config` (required string), leaving its meaning ambiguous. The schema provides no additional hints, so the agent is left guessing about the `config` parameter's content or format.

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 performs a 'sanity-check' on a tester.ini file and optionally cross-checks against EA declarations when `source` is provided. This defines the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_tester_ini (which modifies) and gen_tester_inputs (which generates). However, 'sanity-check' is slightly vague; specifying validation criteria would improve clarity.

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 contexts: validation of tester.ini alone or with a source for cross-referencing. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The conditional behavior is a helpful hint but insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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