patch_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether this is a read-only check, whether it blocks or gates the export, what a failed validation means, or how exhaustive the coverage check is.

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?

One short sentence, fully front-loaded with the action and the resource. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. What remains missing is behavioral context: no annotations and no statement of read-only nature or gating behavior leaves an agent unable to predict the tool's side effects.

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%, but the single parameter is a self-evident session_id, which needs no syntax or format explanation. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable only because the parameter is a universally understood session handle.

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+resource ('Check named patch coverage') that a reader can distinguish from mesh_quality and mesh_inspect. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with those adjacent validation siblings.

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 phrase 'before exporting a CFD mesh' implies a usage window, giving a temporal context. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. mesh_quality, mesh_inspect) and states no condition for when this check is required versus optional.

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