Validate Tidy3D simulation / 校验 Tidy3D 仿真

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds the important guarantee that no code is executed and no task is submitted. This provides behavioral transparency beyond the annotations, though it does not elaborate on what validation checks are performed or how invalid input is reported.

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 compact, bilingual, and front-loaded with the core action. It includes only the essential information: what is validated and what is explicitly not done. No filler or redundant elaboration is present.

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 one fully documented required parameter, an output schema available, and annotations covering side-effect behavior, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The explicit 'without executing code or submitting a task' also removes the main ambiguity that could arise from sibling simulation tools.

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 input schema describes simulation_json as 'Serialized tidy3d.Simulation JSON', which matches the description exactly, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional format, size, or serialization details, but the schema already sufficiently documents the only parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Validate') and a specific resource ('serialized tidy3d.Simulation JSON'), and explicitly adds the negative scope 'without executing code or submitting a task.' This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling execution tools like start_simulation and upload_simulation.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is for validation only and not for running or submitting simulations, which provides useful context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use start_simulation to execute' or similar routing guidance, so it stops short of full alternative-based usage instructions.

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