dts_validate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs locally and does not execute anything, which covers side effects. However, it does not specify what the tool returns upon success or failure, leaving the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place. It communicates functionality and benefits without fluff.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after validation. It states that it 'catches missing required flags and typos,' but does not describe the return value or error reporting format. For a simple validation tool, it is adequate but lacks critical details for a fully informed agent.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal semantic value beyond rephrasing 'flags' as 'flag set' and 'pipeline' as 'pipeline spec.' It fails to clarify the expected format of the pipeline string or the structure of the flags object, which is a significant gap.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Check a flag set against a pipeline spec without running anything.' It distinguishes this from siblings like dts_publish by emphasizing it does not execute, making its validation role obvious.

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 says 'Cheap pre-flight' and explains it prevents malformed publishes from costing Engine time, which clearly implies it should be used before publishing. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is sufficient.

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