Validate portal integrity (read-only)

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

The description discloses the full scope of the sweep (all listed resource types), the categories of issues (structural malformations, dangling references, unscoped mass-write SQL, datasource hygiene), and the 'Fixes nothing' behavior. It also mentions that with the limit param, 'still reports the full counts' (though not in the description text, the behavior is implied by the schema's description). This aligns perfectly with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds substantial context beyond it.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the action and then enumerates checks. It is information-rich without rambling, but slightly long. Every clause adds value — no filler. It's concise enough given the complexity of the tool.

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 covers the resource types, the issue categories, and the non-destructive nature. It implies a report of issues and mentions that counts are still reported even when limited. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return format; while it doesn't specify the exact structure, it's clear enough for an agent to expect a list of findings. The breadth of checks is well covered.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Cap the number of issues returned (still reports the full counts). Omit for all'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sweep every page (layout), partial, theme, query, block, db_modification and system record' — clearly a validation sweep. It enumerates the types of issues it catches, distinguishing it from siblings like validate_block (which is narrower) and repair_query_metadata (which fixes). The purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'run it after bulk changes or on a schedule to catch latent breakage before users do.' It also states 'Fixes nothing,' implying it's for detection rather than remediation. It doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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