multidim_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states determinism, statelessness, no store modification, no LLM calls, no judgment of content truth, and actionable error codes per section. This is thorough and leaves little ambiguity about side effects and scope.

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, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence contributes key information: how it works, what it returns, what side effects it avoids, and how the caller should react. It could be structurally broken into bullets, but it is concise and free of filler.

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 the tool's complexity (two nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it covers purpose, behavior, output shape (verdicts per section), non-modification, non-truth-judging nature, and explicit caller responsibility. An agent has all needed information to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema already describes both parameters adequately (frame as v2 frame, analysis as filled analysis), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the frame format and the caller's responsibility, but it does not provide field-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. No extra detail about required or optional properties is added.

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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('filled analysis against its v2 frame'), and clearly defines the output as ACCEPT/WARNING/REJECT per section. It distinguishes itself from multidim_analyze by referencing its format v2 and from content-judging tools by explicitly saying it never judges truth.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: as a check of a filled analysis against its frame, returning verdicts per section. It also explains the usage loop—only rejected sections are redone, within max_validation_rounds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the contrast with LLM-based analysis and store-modifying operations implies when not to use it.

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