validate_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Run data validation,' which is nearly identical to the tool's name. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies assets, what output it returns, or how errors are reported.

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 sentence ('Run data validation on assets in a directory.') that is concise, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary words. It communicates the core action efficiently.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what validation entails, what results are produced, or how this tool relates to the sibling 'validate_data.' This is inadequate for an agent to select the correct tool among many similar asset and validation tools.

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 input schema has one parameter 'directory' with a full description ('Content directory to validate'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description merely references 'a directory,' adding little beyond what the schema already states. The baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and identifies the resource as 'data validation on assets' with a scope of 'in a directory.' It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'validate_data' or other asset-related tools.

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 alternatives like 'validate_data' or 'content_audit.' No prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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