Plecs Validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the checks are scoped to 'structural' issues and warning-level findings do not affect the ``ok`` result, which tells the agent how to interpret severity.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then a compact enumeration of what is checked. No filler sentences; every clause conveys distinct information.

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-value explanation is not required, and the 'ok' clarification is a nice bonus. But for a three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations about behavior beyond readOnly, the undocumented include_code flag is a real gap an agent would hit.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. The phrase 'by default' hints at include_connections defaulting to true, but include_code is never mentioned and model_name is only implied, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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 ('structural sanity check') and enumerates what is checked: solver/time settings, outports, analyses, and the connection graph. It implicitly distinguishes itself from plecs_simulate via 'before simulating', but does not differentiate from near-siblings like plecs_check, plecs_layout_check, or plecs_diagnose.

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?

'before simulating' gives a clear usage moment, which is more than nothing. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions and no guidance on choosing this over the other checking tools (plecs_check, plecs_diagnose, plecs_layout_check) in the sibling list.

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