validate_board

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

Beyond the annotations' read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, the description explains detailed validation behavior and fallback semantics: unknown pins degrade to 'unverified' rather than being reported as conflicts. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, validation specifics follow in a compact list, and the prerequisite is placed at the end. Despite covering several checks and a fallback rule, every clause carries useful 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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is validated and how the optional DB affects results. It does not describe the return format or how findings are reported, which is a minor remaining gap 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description still adds meaning for db_path by noting the STM32_GDB_MCP_PIN_DB environment fallback, which the schema does not mention. The session parameter receives no extra description, keeping this from a 5.

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 states a specific verb (Validate) and resource (imported BoardDescription), then enumerates the exact conflict classes it detects: package-pin shorts, peripheral fanout, port-pin conflicts, and missing power/ground/debug/reset nets. It clearly distinguishes itself from import_netlist by naming the prerequisite.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Run import_netlist first.' It also clarifies the optional DB condition for AF-legality checks. It does not name a direct alternative or state when not to use this tool, but the operational context is clear.

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