validate_build

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's output behavior ('Provides prioritized critical/warning/info recommendations') and the aspects it validates. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics or potential errors, though 'validation' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence, expands on scope, and immediately provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns (prioritized recommendations), and when to use it. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete and exceeds the minimum viable description.

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?

Schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, providing a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about build_name beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 performs 'comprehensive build validation' and enumerates specific covered areas (resistances, life pool, defensive layers, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning it as a replacement for get_build_issues and analyze_defenses.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'PREFER this over get_build_issues + analyze_defenses' and 'Do not call all three.' This clearly identifies when to use this tool versus alternatives and what to avoid.

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