vcv_validate

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

The description conveys a non-mutating validation behavior and specifies what is checked, which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose side effects, success/failure behavior, or whether the file is modified in any way, so the agent must infer a lot from the word 'Check'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the target resource while remaining easy to scan.

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?

For a simple tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate because return values are presumably covered by that schema. It still lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and does not fully clarify behavioral side effects, leaving moderate gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by indicating the required 'path' parameter refers to a .vcv file. It does not specify path format, file accessibility, or constraints, but for a single simple parameter this is modestly helpful.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Check', identifies the exact resource (a .vcv file), and names two concrete validation concerns: structural problems and missing plugins. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vcv_read, vcv_write, vcv_create, and vcv_library_search.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the generic 'Check a .vcv file' phrasing.

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