spine_runtime_validate

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

The description explicitly states it is read-only and does not write JSON, which provides clear behavioral transparency. Without annotations, this is valuable. However, it does not mention other potential side effects or requirements.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and behavioral trait. Every sentence adds value without extraneous information.

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 description covers the main purpose and read-only nature, but lacks information about the output (e.g., return format or error handling). With no output schema and 5 optional parameters, additional context about what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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 explains each parameter. The tool's description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 uses the official spine-core runtime to verify if resources can be loaded by the current 4.1 runtime, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spine_validate_json which likely validate JSON syntax. The read-only nature is explicitly mentioned.

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 it is for checking runtime compatibility, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spine_validate_json or spine_run_validation_pipeline. No when-not-to-use instructions.

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