spawn_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of exposing behavior. It discloses a key nuance (schema-valid ≠ good), but does not mention potential side effects of compilation, whether it is read-only, or what the return value/response format is. The limitation statement adds transparency, but details are incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by an important caveat. No filler or redundant text. Every sentence 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 tool has a simple parameter and clear purpose, but no output schema exists and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, validation report). The caveat about quality is useful, but the absence of return-value information leaves a gap for a validation tool.

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?

The schema provides a full description of projectDir, but the description adds meaningful context about the expected project structure: 'game.json + world/*.json + scripts/**'. This goes beyond the schema's mention of 'game.json / .env' and helps the agent understand what files are relevant.

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 action: 'Compile the project ... and run authoritative server-side schema validation.' This specifies the verb (compile/validate), the resource (project files), and the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spawn_init or spawn_play_* which serve different purposes.

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 provides useful context on when to rely on this tool: it validates schema but not quality. It explicitly warns that 'Schema-valid is not the same as good' and points to the spawn_skill as the source of quality guidance. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative validation tools, it gives clear usage context and a limitation.

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