validate_ladder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the non-mutating safety profile is covered. The description adds some scope context by clarifying it reports import verification rather than mutating state, but says nothing about output content (e.g., errors vs warnings) despite an output schema existing.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the scope exclusion. It is terse and efficient, though arguably underspecified rather than optimally trimmed.

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. But the description does not decode the "IR encoding" concept or place the tool in a workflow relative to siblings, leaving the agent with only a bare scope statement for a validation tool.

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 single `ladder` parameter has no description in the schema (0% top-level coverage), and the tool description never mentions its structure or expected shape. It relies entirely on the nested $defs for meaning, so the prose compensates for none of the coverage gap on the required argument.

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 names a verb-plus-resource ("Check IR encoding") and adds a negative scope boundary ("Not PLC syntax validation"), which is a genuine differentiator. However, "IR encoding" is unexplained jargon and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like inspect_ldr, read_ldr, or simulate_ladder, so an agent must infer which validation tool to pick.

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 a single when-not clause ("Not PLC syntax validation"), but no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the eight siblings. The agent is left to guess at what point in a workflow this validator should be invoked.

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