exp_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive context: it discloses that it inspects the server guard's view of each write and performs symbol resolution against the connected PLC, which tells the agent this check depends on a live PLC connection.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by an enumerated list of checks. No filler, though the long comma-separated list is slightly heavy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately covers input forms and validation scope for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that 'spec' can be YAML/JSON text, a dict, or a saved experiment by name, and by noting symbol resolution on the PLC (the resolve_symbols toggle). Only resolve_symbols' exact semantics remain implicit.

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?

States a specific verb (Validate) and resource (spec), then enumerates exactly what is checked: structure, measures, metrics, criteria, write guards, symbol resolution, run count, duration. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like exp_run and exp_evaluate.

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 verb 'validate' implies a pre-run check and the enumerated checks reinforce that context, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus exp_run or exp_evaluate, nor does it name any alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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