spine_run_validation_pipeline

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

With no annotations, description must fully disclose behavior; it states read-only and lists steps but omits return values, side effects (e.g., does preview URL persist?), permissions, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

Single sentence front-loads purpose and key actions without wasted words, but could benefit from separation of concerns (e.g., listing outputs) for improved readability.

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?

No output schema and no explanation of return value or state changes; the tool combines multiple validations and URL generation, yet description lacks details on how results are conveyed, making it insufficient for correct invocation decisions.

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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage, so description adds no extra meaning beyond listing the validation steps, which do not directly map to parameter use.

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?

Description explicitly states it executes a read-only validation pipeline including structure validation, runtime loading validation, and preview URL generation, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like spine_validate_json or spine_runtime_validate by combining multiple checks into one process.

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?

Indicates usage 'after writing' and describes it as a recommended post-write process, but does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to alternatives, though context from sibling names implies differentiation.

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