Validate OKF Bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context: reads from disk, respects exclude patterns, reports degrees rather than verdicts, and exempts reserved files. This goes well beyond the structured annotation fields.

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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, usage timing, severity taxonomy, and exact return keys. It front-loads core behavior and organizes the detailed enumeration clearly.

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 zero-parameter audit tool with rich output, the description fully covers detection semantics, severity rules, exclusions, and the exact report structure. The presence of an output schema plus this description leaves no ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the empty schema is fully covered. The detailed return-format description is valuable but belongs to contextual completeness rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('vault's OKF conformance'), and distinguishes itself from sibling okf_* tools by focusing on conformance reporting rather than conversion, index generation, or log seeding. The description clearly defines what validation means in this context.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a migration progress meter and notes it works before the index is built or okf_version is declared, giving clear conditions for use. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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