generate_validation_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates the tool is a read-only generation operation returning 'a list of relevant questions,' which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose whether it depends on upstream data (like get_current_changes), whether results vary deterministically, or any preconditions on the codeChanges format. Some value is added but key behavioral aspects are unaddressed.

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, efficient two-sentence block with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and ends with the domain context. Slightly more structured detail (e.g., listing the two compliance domains more explicitly) could be added without padding, but it's appropriately concise.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must carry substantial information. It explains the purpose and domain context but is thin on behavioral specifics: it doesn't describe the return format, the nature of the generated questions, whether filePath affects question selection, or how this integrates with the sibling validation tools. Adequate but with clear gaps given the zero-annotation context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (filePath and codeChanges). The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond noting that codeChanges are 'the code changes to analyze' — it clarifies the relationship between the parameters and the output but provides no format guidance. This meets the baseline 3 but doesn't exceed it.

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 'Generate pre-defined validation questions based on code changes' with a specific verb (generate), resource (validation questions), and scope (based on code changes, for ABAC compliance and cross-component compatibility). It's clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from its siblings like validate_abac_changes or analyze_cross_component_impact, which appear related to similar validation/analysis concerns.

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 mentions the purpose ('for ABAC compliance and cross-component compatibility') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention alternatives, exclusions, or sequencing (e.g., should validate_abac_changes be called after this, or instead of it). The context for use is only implied through the purpose statement.

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