Validate Graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds value by enumerating the specific logical issues it checks for (blocked done tasks, circular dependencies, etc.), which helps the agent anticipate what the tool will flag. However, it doesn't disclose whether results are returned as a list, errors, or a summary, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations.

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, focused sentence that starts with an action verb and immediately states the purpose. The list of issue types is compact and relevant. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only validation tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It conveys the scope of checks and the target resource. It doesn't explicitly mention the return format, but the list of issue types gives a strong hint. The optional project scoping and default-all-checks behavior are documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. Overall, adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%: both 'checks' and 'project' have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it lists issue types that are likely related to the 'checks' parameter, but doesn't detail parameter syntax or default behavior. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 function: "Check the graph for logical issues" and provides specific examples (blocked done tasks, circular dependencies, empty milestones, orphan nodes, dangling edges). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_blocked_tasks (focused on one issue type) and doctor_report (broader health check). The verb 'check' is specific and the resource 'graph' is identified.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It's clear this is a general validation tool, but there's no statement like 'use find_blocked_tasks for task-specific issues' or 'run this before exporting'. Sibling tools such as detect_contradictions and validate_memory_references offer overlapping validation features, but the description doesn't acknowledge them.

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