Sim preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: results are structured, every issue carries a knowledge-pack rule id, and ok=false is a hard gate on running. It repeats "Read-only" redundantly and doesn't describe the full result shape, but the gate semantics are valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and then dense with genuinely informative check categories; each clause carries content rather than filler. It is a single heavy sentence-chain and the trailing bulc rule-id reference is cryptic, keeping it just below the top mark.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it adequately characterizes the output (structured issues tagged with rule ids, an ok flag with a clear meaning). The solver-mode implications for which checks apply are hinted but not fully spelled out, leaving a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% with a single enum param, so the schema already documents solver entirely. The description restates the enum values and the gpu default without adding format or behavior meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (a pre-run validation check) and enumerates the concrete checks it aggregates (validate_project, deck reference errors, D*/dx resolution advice). By naming validate_project, deck checks and grid-resolution advice as its components, it implicitly positions itself as the superset of sibling single-purpose validators like validate_project and bulc_check_deck.

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?

"Pre-run check" plus "ok=false means do not run" establishes clear timing and the decision it drives, and mentioning that it combines validate_project signals why an agent shouldn't call the narrower validators separately. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it or names an alternative to route to instead.

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