validate_board_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the validation checks performed and the return format (valid, schema_errors, warnings) with behavioral consequences (schema_errors block automation, warnings do not). Missing are potential side effects or authorization needs, but it's a read-only validation tool.

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 concise, comprising a single paragraph that front-loads the main action and lists specific checks. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and avoids fluff.

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 description explains the validation logic and return format adequately for a simple tool, but it omits the input parameter description and does not mention prerequisites or assumptions about the board spec's existence. Given the context (1 param, no output schema), it is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 description does not explain the single required parameter 'machine' (type string). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from context.

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: schema-validate a board spec and run cross-checks. It lists specific checks (delta partitions must have notes, no collisions, etc.) distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve or list board specs.

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 implies usage for validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_board_spec or refresh_specs. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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