validate

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

Annotations already declare destructive, open-world, non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it performs a baseline-to-post-command scope check, but does not explain what scope means, what commands can affect, or permission requirements.

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?

A single sentence is concise, but it is too sparse for a 5-parameter destructive tool. It lacks front-loaded critical details such as what the validation checks, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

Despite an output schema and safety annotations, the description does not explain the validation logic, command execution semantics, or any parameters. For a complex, destructive tool with 0% schema description coverage, it is not complete enough.

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 coverage is 0% for 5 parameters. The description mentions 'explicit commands' and implies a root/scope, but gives no meaning for denied_patterns, allowed_patterns, timeout_seconds, or root. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

States that it runs commands and performs a scope check, but 'validate' is broad and the description doesn't clarify what is being validated or how it differs from sibling tools like shell or run_python. The purpose is only partially clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for selecting this over siblings. Usage is only implied by the description.

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