Validate a skill module for correctness and compliance with platform requirements, ensuring it is ready for use in the YAAIF environment.
Validate a skill module via platform local tool skill_validate_module.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | ||
| arguments | No | ||
| session_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'validate'. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, whether it requires session context, or what the return value looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded useful details and wastes words on redundant 'via platform local tool skill_validate_module'.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this tool correctly, what inputs are expected, or what the outcome will be.
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 0%, and the description provides no information about agent_id, arguments, or session_id. The agent has no clue what values to pass or what the arguments object should contain, leaving the tool unusable without external knowledge.
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 action 'Validate a skill module', which is clear, but it adds 'via platform local tool skill_validate_module' which is redundant with the tool name. It does not explain what validation entails or differentiate from sibling yaaif_skill_validate. It is not a pure tautology but lacks specificity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yaaif_skill_validate. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned. The description offers no context to help an agent choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.