Validate a project-relative .fcoh.yaml file to catch CAD design-intent errors without creating a CAD document. Check YAML correctness before generating parts.
Validate a project-relative .fcoh.yaml file without creating a CAD document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not create a CAD document, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe side effects, permissions, exit behavior, or return value beyond that single trait.
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?
A single sentence contains the verb, the target resource, the path constraint, and a key behavioral distinction. There is no repetition of schema fields and no 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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what file to pass and the key behavioral point. It could add what 'validate' actually checks or what happens on invalid input, but it is otherwise sufficient.
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?
The schema gives 0% description coverage, leaving the single 'file' parameter unannotated. The description compensates by specifying that the parameter is a project-relative .fcoh.yaml path, which is valuable semantic information for one parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Validate a project-relative .fcoh.yaml file') and states the resource and a key constraint ('without creating a CAD document.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like fcoh_build.
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 'project-relative' and 'without creating a CAD document' gives clear context for when this validation tool is appropriate and implies an alternative build path. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusion criteria, but the intended use is still clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.