dialectic_validate_run

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

Annotations are neutral (no readOnly, idempotent, or destructive hints), but the description adds crucial behavioral info: dry_run only shows pending count and would_spawn, while a real run spawns and advances the cursor. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the key mode. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers the basic action and dry_run mode, but lacks explanation of the force parameter and return value description (output schema exists but not addressed). With simple parameters, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, yet the description only explains dry_run implicitly via its behavior. The force parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning unclear.

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 the tool fires one validator pass, with a specific dry_run mode that shows pending count and would_spawn without actual spawning. This distinguishes it from status-check tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like dialectic_validate_status or other run tools. The agent gets no context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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