sdd-validate-design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Validate design artifact' does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies any state, what permissions are needed, or what output is returned. This is a serious omission.

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 easy to read, but it sacrifices substance for brevity. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no meaningful detail about the tool's behavior or scope.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should have compensated by explaining the validation process, expected inputs, and outputs. It does none of this, making it inadequate for a tool that appears to be a workflow gate.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter, featureName, with a clear description and pattern, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, 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 states 'Validate design artifact', which uses a verb and resource but is largely a restatement of the tool name 'sdd-validate-design'. It does not specify what validation entails, what a 'design artifact' is, or how it differs from sibling tools like sdd-validate-gap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it fits into the SDD workflow. The sibling tool list suggests a sequence, but the description offers no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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