validate_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates the tool does not execute (dry-run) and is for diagnostics, implying no side effects. Could be more explicit about no state changes.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and nature (dry-run), the second advises on usage. Information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, simple parameters) and clear description, it is adequately complete. It explains what it does and when to use it. Could mention return value but not critical.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only contextualizing the parameters for validation purposes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'test' and resource 'command', specifying it is a dry-run validation. It distinguishes from siblings like execute_command by noting it does not execute.

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 explicitly states to use this tool to troubleshoot security blocks before attempting execution, implying the context of use. It does not name alternatives but context with sibling tools suggests execute_command for actual execution.

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