validate_room_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states report-only, that nothing is written, and that results are ok + findings. It also reveals the nuanced policy that area_m2 is a hint with provenance, not a normative fact.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organizes parameter usage and validation details into a compact, readable list. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or 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?

Even without annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, side-effect behavior, and return shape (ok + findings). Since an output schema exists, return details need not be spelled out further. The tool call can be understood and invoked correctly from this description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining both parameters: template is a built-in slot_id with examples like 'bedroom'/'kitchen', and path points to a custom template YAML. It also clarifies the or-relationship between them.

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 names a specific verb and resource: validate a Room Library template against the R1 schema. It also distinguishes itself from sibling check_* tools by declaring report-only behavior and focusing on template contract checks.

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 the context of use: validating either a built-in template by slot_id or a custom YAML by path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the narrow template-validation scope makes the intended usage plain.

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