validate_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that validation is static and lists the checks performed, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns on success/failure, or any error behavior. For a validation tool, this is a meaningful gap, though the word 'statically' hints at no side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the pointer to flow_reference is a useful one-line addition. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's core validation scope but omits the return format (e.g., error list, exit code) and does not explicitly confirm it is read-only. Given there is no output schema, the description should have explained what the agent can expect as a result. The absence of that detail leaves a notable gap.

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 100%, and the parameter description already states 'Path to the .yaml flow file.' The tool description does not add further meaning about path syntax, file naming conventions, or required permissions. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the 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 specific verb and resource: 'Statically validate a YAML test flow file.' It lists concrete validation aspects (schema, lint, subflow resolution) and explicitly contrasts with sibling flow_reference by directing the agent there for grammar. The 'No device needed' qualifier further separates it from device-dependent siblings like run_flow.

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 gives clear context: static validation without a device, and points to flow_reference as the alternative for grammar. Although it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of run_flow when you only need to check validity,' the 'No device needed' phrase strongly implies that distinction. This is enough for an agent to infer when to choose this tool.

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