business_loop_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool identifies 6 node types and checks various aspects (reachability, forms, buttons, network, state transitions). It does not state whether the tool is read-only or modifies state, but the task is validation-oriented, so likely non-destructive. This is fairly transparent for its purpose.

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 reasonably concise with a clear overview followed by a list of node types. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed but overall effective.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values or how to interpret results. It does explain what is checked but not what the agent receives back. Context is adequate for understanding the tool's function but incomplete for full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema. It mentions node types but those are not parameters. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 that the tool validates business loops by identifying 6 specific node types (lead_capture, product_browse, etc.) and checking reachability, form integrity, and flow coherence. This is distinct from sibling tools like browser_flow or validation_flow which are more general.

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 for business loop validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like browser_flow, validation_flow, or browser_smoke_test. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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