validate_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states what the tool checks but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what side effects (if any) occur. 'Проверка' implies a check, but no explicit guarantee of non-mutation. The description also doesn't mention authentication or error behavior.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and enumerates the checks. No filler or redundancy. However, it is under-specified in other dimensions, but for conciseness alone it earns a high score.

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?

The output schema exists, so return format may be covered, but the description omits any context about what the validation output looks like, whether it's a list of issues, a boolean, or a report. It also lacks usage conditions and parameter semantics. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides no explanation of the required 'handle' or optional 'limit' parameters. An agent cannot determine what handle refers to (e.g., a plan handle, device handle, or config ID) or how limit influences results. This is a significant gap.

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 an integrity check and lists specific items it validates (outdated signatures, broken links, orphans). This distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'проверка' (check) plus resource (config integrity) is clear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies validation before modifications, but there is no statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions. An agent would have to infer that it runs a read-only integrity check. Sibling tools are mostly mutation or lookup operations, so differentiation is weak.

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