utility_is_valid

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 mentions the tool checks validity and that validity relates to recent edits, but doesn't disclose what happens on invalid objects (error? return value?), whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. The description is too thin to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 very concise, with a clear one-line purpose and a single parameter explanation. It's front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. The only minor issue is that it could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. However, it lacks context about what 'valid' means beyond 'survived recent edits', and doesn't explain the return value or error behavior. For a utility tool with no annotations, this is incomplete. The sibling 'utility_validate' suggests there might be a more comprehensive validation tool, but this description doesn't clarify the distinction.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'target' as 'Object path or {guid}', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it doesn't provide examples or clarify the format of the object path or guid, leaving some ambiguity. Baseline for low coverage is 3, and this meets it minimally.

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 states the tool checks whether an object is valid, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('object'). It adds context that validity means 'survived recent edits', which clarifies the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'utility_validate', which likely has a similar purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'utility_validate' or 'utility_lookup'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or context for use. The only hint is the parenthetical about recent edits, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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