check_cde_structure

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It states the return type (JSON with assessment, references, recommended actions) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication (api_key is optional, but no mention of mandatory auth). Missing details on error conditions or side effects.

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 concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter and return descriptions. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, the list format (Args:, Returns:) is not ideal for MCP but still functional.

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 no annotations, the description provides some context about the return structure (assessment, references, recommended actions) but lacks details on what the validation covers and the exact role of parameters. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description could be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: it explains that 'query' can be a VRM, card number, or project ID, and 'api_key' is an optional MEOK API key. This goes beyond the bare schema and helps agents understand usage, though 'MEOK' could be clarified.

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 'Common Data Environment structure validation' and the return type, indicating a validation tool. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_bim_maturity' and 'validate_bep' by focusing on CDE. However, 'structure validation' is somewhat vague, missing specifics on what aspects of structure are validated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'check_bim_maturity' or 'validate_eir'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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