The tools are mostly distinct: validate_abac_changes covers full validation, analyze_cross_component_impact focuses specifically on cross-component work, get_current_changes retrieves diffs, and generate_validation_questions produces questions. The main overlap is between validate_abac_changes and analyze_cross_component_impact, since validation already includes cross-component impact analysis, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one.

Tools generally follow verb_object pattern: validate_abac_changes, analyze_cross_component_impact, get_current_changes, generate_validation_questions. All use snake_case with consistent verb-first naming, though the objects vary in form (abac_changes vs cross_component_impact vs current_changes vs validation_questions) making them slightly less uniform.

Four tools is a well-scoped set for a validation workflow. Each tool represents a distinct stage: get diffs, generate questions, analyze cross-component impact, and validate. This is an appropriate size that feels lean but sufficient for the stated purpose of ABAC change validation.

The workflow covers retrieving changes, generating questions, analyzing cross-component impact, and validating against requirements. However, there's no dedicated tool for applying validation recommendations or generating a final report/summary, and the coupling between generate_validation_questions and validate_abac_changes (which accepts answers to 8 predefined questions) may leave a gap if questions change. The core loop is covered but reporting and remediation are absent.