validate_schedule_scheme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool reads property definitions only, not values, and thus avoids the property-read crash. This is a critical behavioral safety detail that goes beyond the schema. However, it does not describe other behaviors like error handling or idempotency, so a 4 is fair—it adds significant context but is not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a crucial safety disclaimer. No fluff, every word earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity: it checks bindings and captions, with a safety caveat. The output schema exists (likely a report of issues), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the what and the safety aspect, but misses explaining the port parameter and any prerequisites. Given the output schema and the clear purpose, a 4 is appropriate; it is complete enough for most cases but leaves the port parameter undocumented.

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 input schema has two parameters: path (required string) and port (optional integer/null). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the parameters at all. The description implies the path is the scheme file, but does not explain the port parameter. Baseline for low coverage and no param info is low; I assign a 3 because the description adds some context about the tool's purpose (validating an exported scheme) which hints at the path parameter, but port remains unexplained. With 2 parameters and 0% coverage, a score of 2 would be justified, but considering the description gives overall purpose that disambiguates parameters, I give 3.

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 clearly states the tool validates an exported schedule scheme against the open project, checking for missing property bindings and column caption mismatches. It specifies the resource (schedule scheme) and the action (check/validate), distinguishing it from siblings like read_schedule_scheme and edit_schedule_scheme.

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 description implies usage context: use this to validate an exported scheme before applying it, or to detect inconsistencies. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the mention of 'check against the open project' gives clear context. A score of 4 is appropriate because it provides context without explicit exclusions.

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