validate

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It only states that validation occurs, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, or whether errors are thrown or returned. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key validation areas. No unnecessary words or redundant 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 adequately covers the scope of validation, mentioning the specific compliance dimensions. Since no output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It lacks details on exit status or output format, but this is not mandated given the context.

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 is empty, so schema coverage is complete. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given there are no parameters.

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 validates repository compliance, listing specific aspects (directory naming, required files, config schema, encoding). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on compliance checks rather than scanning, reading, or writing content.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an equivalent CLI command but lacks contextual direction such as 'use this before publishing' or 'instead of manual checks.'

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