research_validate

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

The description explicitly states 'without mutation', which is a key behavioral trait, but with no annotations provided, it carries full burden. It does not disclose error behavior, prerequisites, or potential side effects like locking or resource usage. This provides some value but lacks depth.

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, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or redundant content.

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 tool has a simple interface with one parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks guidance on the 'project' parameter and when to use validation, making it minimally adequate but with 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 input schema only defines a single 'project' string parameter with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'project' refers to or how it should be formatted. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning to the parameter.

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 checks SQLite integrity and project governance invariants, using the specific verb 'Check' and identifying a distinct resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like research_query or research_get_record, which are for retrieval or mutation.

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 the tool is used for validation tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of related tools or conditions, leaving usage guidance only implicit.

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