pvsyst_validate_component

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine value by scoping what validation means (format and known fields only, not model behavior) — that's a real limitation an agent should know. However, it says nothing about side effects (is it read-only?), what a failure looks like, or whether it can touch or mutate the library.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the bracket tag and the core claim, followed by the limitation — no filler. It is terse to the point of being slightly under-informative, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 3-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description should explain the library/workspace scoping and what a successful validation returns (a pass/fail verdict? a list of unknown fields?). Neither is covered, so an agent cannot confidently construct the call or interpret the result from this definition alone.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It only hints that the target is a component with "known fields," giving no meaning for filename, component_type values, or the library parameter's "workspace" default and its alternatives — the single most confusing parameter is left completely unexplained.

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 says it will "check format and known fields" of a component, which is a real verb+resource claim, but it never states what kind of file or which artifact is being validated (the reader must infer from the tool name that it is a PVsyst component file). It also doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling pvsyst_validate_variant_structure, which performs a superficially similar validation role.

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 clause "only a simulation verifies PVsyst model behavior" implicitly routes the agent toward a simulation tool (e.g. pvsyst_simulate_design / pvsyst_run_simulation) when semantic verification is needed, which is useful context. But no tool is named, no prerequisite is stated (e.g. must the component exist in a library first?), and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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