validate_scenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's read-only nature is consistent. The description adds that validation checks against canonical devices and capabilities, which clarifies the operation's basis, but does not describe failure behavior, response semantics, or side effects beyond annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. The key action and subject are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

The core validation behavior is stated, and an output schema plus read-only annotations are present, reducing the burden on the description. However, the description lacks guidance on how this validation relates to sibling tools and what the scenario object must contain, so it is 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?

The sole parameter, 'scenario', is an open object with additionalProperties=true and no description in the schema. The description adds that it is an 'optimization scenario' and that validation targets 'canonical devices and capabilities', but it does not explain required fields or expected structure, leaving 0% schema coverage undercompensated.

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 ('Validate') and resource ('optimization scenario') and adds the validation basis ('against canonical devices and capabilities'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like validate_command and validate_plan by the resource type, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus validate_plan, validate_command, optimize_scenario, or explain_solution. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing hints.

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