Validate OKF Bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds only the notion of 'audit', implying a read-only check. It doesn't disclose what the audit returns or whether it produces a report, but the output schema likely covers that. Given the annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds minimal behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb 'Audit' and the resource, making it immediately clear. There is zero waste.

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 tool with no parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't explain what 'conformance' means or what the output looks like, but the presence of an output schema and the read-only annotations cover the essentials. An agent can call it without needing extra context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is fine since there are none to document.

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 uses a specific verb 'Audit' and identifies a clear resource: 'the vault's Open Knowledge Format conformance'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like okf_convert_links and okf_generate_index, which have different purposes. It is not a tautology and directly conveys the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use when you need to verify OKF compliance before converting links' or 'use after generating an index to validate'. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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