validate_patch

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

No annotations provided; description only states it 'detect[s] warnings', which suggests a read-only operation but does not confirm. No mention of side effects, required permissions, or response structure. With no annotations, description should provide more behavioral context.

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?

One concise sentence of under 15 words, front-loaded with action and key details. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from brief expansion.

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?

Simple tool with one param and no output schema; description covers purpose but omits details like what constitutes a boundary or reference, types of warnings, and output format. Incomplete for effective agent usage.

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?

Single parameter 'task' described as 'The task name or identifier.' Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it validates a patch plan against codebase boundaries and references to detect warnings. Verb 'validate' with specific resource 'patch plan' and scope 'against codebase boundaries and references' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'propose_patch' and 'review_patch'.

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?

Implies usage after creating a patch plan, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'review_patch' or 'verify_change'. Lacks when-not-to-use and prerequisite info.

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