graph_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists validation targets and does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it can modify the graph, what happens on validation failure, or what side effects it may have. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool in a graph-mutation-adjacent context.

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 one compact sentence with the verb front-loaded. It contains no filler, though the list format crams multiple concepts together without explaining them.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the role of the parameters, the validation output, failure behavior, or side effects, so an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool or interpret its result.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention projectRoot or includeStructured. The agent is left to guess what the projectRoot path refers to and what includeStructured controls, so the description adds no parameter meaning.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Validate' and enumerates the resources it checks (global graph references, Chain paths, Plan targets, etc.). This differentiates it from graph_search, graph_mutate, and graph_patch, which perform different actions. However, the list is jargon-heavy and doesn't state the overall goal or how validation results are presented.

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 is provided on when to use this tool compared with siblings like graph_search or graph_mutate. It doesn't state prerequisites, such as needing a registered project or graph, nor does it mention any scenario where validation should be run.

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