validation_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool checks and marks non-compliant functions but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, permissions, or how 'marking' occurs. The behavioral model is partially defined but lacks important details.

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 that front-loads the purpose, uses clear terminology, and is free of redundancy. Every word serves the definition.

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 tool has 3 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description explains the compliance check but does not specify the return format or output behavior. Given complexity, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., list of non-compliant functions) to be 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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds context about the overall purpose (5-step chain, NON-COMPLIANT marking) but does not clarify parameter specifics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 it validates '链路验证合规性' (link verification compliance) for functions in the current session, specifies the 5-step chain, and indicates non-compliant functions are marked. This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools, which focus on specific aspects.

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 checking full 5-step chain compliance but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like validation_chain or validation_check. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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