validate

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

The description adds the scope of checks and CLI equivalence, but does not disclose expected behavior on failure, output format, or side effects. Since readOnlyHint=true is already annotated, the read-only nature is covered; the description adds modest context beyond that but no deeper behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, lists the compliance dimensions, and provides a CLI equivalent. Every element adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose well. However, with no output schema, it omits what the tool returns or how compliance results are reported, which would be useful for an agent deciding next steps after validation.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and no parameter explanation is needed. A baseline of 4 for 0-param tools 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 the tool's function: checking repository compliance, with concrete areas (directory naming, required files, config/schema, encoding). The CLI equivalence ('story validate') adds a precise reference and differentiates it from sibling tools like build or scan_stories.

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 the tool is used for compliance validation but provides no explicit context about when to run it or when to prefer alternatives. No exclusions or alternative-tool references are given, so usage guidance remains only implied.

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