validate_fis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying exactly what the tool detects and reports (unused subsets, duplicate premises, incoherent ranges). It does not mention side effects, but 'validate' and 'signale' strongly imply a read-only reporting operation.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences: the first states the purpose and main categories, the second adds concrete examples of detected problems. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 description gives a strong overview of the tool's behavior and checks, but lacks guidance on the meaning of the required 'path' parameter and the exact return/error behavior. Given there are no annotations or output schema, the description 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. The only available meaning is the schema title 'Path', which is insufficient to clarify what path should point to (e.g., a file, directory, or system definition). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Contrôle') and enumerates concrete validation targets: partitions, rule coverage, inconsistencies, unused fuzzy subsets, duplicate premises, and incoherent ranges. This clearly distinguishes validate_fis from sibling tools like list_fis, describe_fis, and infer, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool: to check the health of a fuzzy inference system and detect structural problems. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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