fusion_validate_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a non-mutating reporting operation, what kinds of results it produces, and a key limitation. This is solid but not exhaustive; it does not describe output format, failure behavior, or what exactly counts as an 'unhealthy feature.'

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful limitation without wasting words.

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 validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough high-level context to understand its purpose, but it leaves gaps: what the return value looks like, how checks are interpreted, and how the tool behaves when checks are empty or fail. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It does not explain document_id or the checks array structure beyond the vague phrase 'numeric body checks,' which only loosely maps to the MeasurementCheck schema. The naming and enum values in the schema carry most of the semantic burden.

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 ('Report') and names concrete outputs: unhealthy features, underconstrained sketches, and numeric body checks. It also adds an explicit non-goal (does not certify manufacturability), which helps separate it from manufacturing-oriented tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish against.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fusion_check_interference or fusion_model_overview. The only usage-related hint is the negative statement that it does not certify manufacturability, which is more a scope disclaimer than a routing rule.

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