moose_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: every CLASS:METHOD call is looked up, unknown methods/classes are flagged, and deprecated-class or pcall-on-lookup anti-patterns are surfaced. This goes beyond a simple 'validates' statement and gives a clear picture of the validation logic, though it could further clarify the output format or 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?

The description is compact, with two sentences total. The second sentence is highly informative. The opening 'Correlation core' is somewhat cryptic and does not immediately clarify the tool's purpose, which slightly reduces structure quality, but overall it is concise and free of redundant fluff.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description explains what the tool does and what it flags, but does not describe the return value format or error behavior. For a validation tool, it would be more complete to state what the output looks like (e.g., a list of issues), making this a gap. The low parameter complexity reduces the burden, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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% with one parameter ('code') described as 'The Lua snippet to validate.' The tool description adds some context (e.g., 'generated' snippet, validation against Pillar 1 index), but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema itself, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's verb ('validates') and resource ('generated Lua snippet against the Pillar 1 framework index'), with explicit details about what it checks (CLASS:METHOD lookups, unknown methods/classes, anti-patterns). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like moose_lookup and moose_search, which likely focus on retrieval rather than validation.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to validate a Lua snippet against the framework index. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., moose_lookup for simple lookup, moose_example for examples) or provide exclusions, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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