validate_java_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the validation gates (syntax, graph, contract, safety) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. It also does not explain the term 'bounded' or describe failure behavior. For a validation tool, read-only is implied but never stated.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that leads with the verb and core purpose. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it might slightly benefit from a bit more detail.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 5 required) and no annotation support, the description is far too brief. It does not explain what 'bounded' means, what the four gate types entail, or what the output schema represents. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential context for an agent to call this tool 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 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the six parameters. It does not explain what 'source', 'class_name', 'config_path', etc., mean or how they relate to each other. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description offers zero elaboration on constraints or formats.

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 purpose: 'Validate bounded Java source against syntax, graph, contract, and safety gates.' It uses a specific verb ('validate') and a precise resource ('bounded Java source'), and it distinguishes this tool from its siblings (which mainly generate tests) by focusing on validation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where it would be preferred over the sibling tools (e.g., generate_java_test). Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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