validate_command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that no adapter is invoked, which clarifies that validation is non-executing. It does not disclose what happens on failure or whether validation has side effects beyond the annotation guarantees.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core purpose and the critical non-execution qualifier are both front-loaded and clearly expressed.

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 tool has nested object parameters, no schema-level parameter descriptions, and several sibling validation/execution tools. The description gives only the core idea and leaves the agent without enough context to construct a valid command or choose confidently among siblings.

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 description does not explain the command object's structure, the meaning of 'semantic command', or the optional agent_request_id. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate but provides almost no parameter-level guidance.

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 ('validate'), a resource ('one semantic command'), and a key behavioral qualifier ('without invoking an adapter'). It clearly separates validation from execution, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling validation tools like validate_plan or validate_scenario.

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 phrase 'without invoking an adapter' implies this is a dry-run validation rather than an execution, which gives the agent a sense of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over validate_plan, validate_scenario, or execute_plan, leaving the routing partially to inference.

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