debim_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates what is checked, which is genuine behavioral content, but it omits whether the operation is purely read-only, whether a failing manifest throws or returns structured errors, and whether validation has side effects. Partial coverage only.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the check list immediately after. No filler, though the check enumeration could be slightly condensed.

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, and the tool is low-complexity with one parameter. However, for a validation gate in a six-tool pipeline, the absence of any guidance on ordering relative to debim_compile_ifc leaves an agent guessing.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema alone contributes nothing. The description compensates by establishing that the input is a YAML manifest string, but adds no syntax expectations, size limits, or format constraints beyond that.

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 (Validate) and resource (declarative BIM manifest YAML string), and enumerates the checks performed (schema syntax, grid consistency, storey heights, material references). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like debim_compile_ifc, though it never names them explicitly.

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 says nothing about when to call this versus debim_compile_ifc or debim_qto, nor whether validation is a prerequisite before compiling. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given; usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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