validate_idea

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists exact return values (scorecard, evidence brief, verdict, deltas, archetypes) and mentions conditional behavior ('if a skill graph is on file'). It also notes the persistence behavior tied to the `save` parameter.

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 compact but includes necessary detail. It front-loads the core action ('Validate a startup idea before scaffolding code for it.'), then lists outputs efficiently. A very slight verbosity in listing all outputs prevents a perfect 5, but it remains well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the full return structure, conditional behavior, and persistence options. No obvious gaps remain for an LLM to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds valuable usage hints beyond the schema: for `rawIdea` it advises specificity and normalizes messiness; for `save` it explains default behavior and ephemeral usage. This enriches the agent's understanding of each 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 opens with a clear action-verb+resource: 'Validate a startup idea before scaffolding code for it.' It unambiguously states the tool's function and context, distinguishing it from potential siblings by specifying the prerequisite step.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Call this BEFORE writing project scaffolding when the user is greenfield-building from a raw idea.' While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable given no sibling tools exist.

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