cgis_validate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Report' and the output description imply a read-only diagnostic, but the description never explicitly states that the tool does not modify the graph or database, nor does it mention permissions, failure modes, or side effects. Partial transparency at best.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage guidance in the second sentence. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description supplies the essential usage trigger and output flavor. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that the tool is non-mutating, but the read-oriented language and existing schema are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, with db_path and threshold already well documented. The description adds some interpretive value by linking 'high unresolved ratio' to missing callers, which gives context to the threshold parameter, but it mostly restates what the schema already conveys. This meets the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb and resource, 'Report graph integrity as JSON: edge resolution stats + health verdict', which clearly states what the tool produces. It also differentiates itself from siblings by positioning itself as a pre-check for cgis_analyze_impact, so an agent can tell when to pick this tool.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Check this before trusting cgis_analyze_impact output' and explains the consequence of a high unresolved ratio. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or point to alternative validation workflows, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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