si_validate_length_matching

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

Annotations are empty, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Validate,' implying a read-only check, but does not describe what the tool returns, how it signals pass/fail, whether it errors, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a validation tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise, though it omits useful details, making it more under-specified than truly comprehensive.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not define what 'matched' means, how net groups are evaluated, or what the output schema contains. With no annotations or schema descriptions, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 compensate. It mentions 'net group' and 'supplied tolerance,' providing some meaning for net_groups and tolerance_mm, but it does not explain the structure of net_groups (array of arrays of strings) or how the tolerance is applied (e.g., max-min difference). The parameters remain underspecified.

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 says 'Validate that each net group is matched within the supplied tolerance,' which clearly indicates the tool checks length matching for net groups. It is specific about the resource (net groups) and the condition (tolerance), though it relies on the tool name for the 'length' context and does not explicitly differentiate from similar validation tools like si_check_differential_pair_skew.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or relationship to sibling tools like si_check_differential_pair_skew or tune_diff_pair_length, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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