rs_validate_rapid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Validate' implies a non-destructive check and the parenthetical enumerates what is checked, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about whether the operation touches the controller/network, how deep the check goes (only block balance, or full syntax), or what a failed validation produces.

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 compact sentence with the resource and the scope check front-loaded, no filler. The trailing '(etc.)' slightly weakens the precision of the enumerated checks but keeps it short.

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?

For a simple one-parameter validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what the result looks like (error list vs boolean) and whether validation is offline. It covers the input side adequately but leaves the outcome side undefined.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Full RAPID source code to validate'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or size guidance beyond that, warranting the baseline 3.

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 pairs a specific verb (Validate) with a specific resource (RAPID source code syntax) and further narrows scope to block balance constructs (IF/ENDIF, PROC/ENDPROC). This is clearly distinct from the sibling write/read module tools, though it never explicitly names a sibling or contrasts itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus rs_write_module, rws_load_module_from_file, or any of the rws_* controller tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether a controller connection is needed or whether this is a purely offline check). Usage is only inferable from the tool's name.

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