Validate a diagram IR

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 usefully discloses the return contract ({ valid, errors }) and that registries are consulted beyond the schema, but says nothing about side effects, error behavior, or whether validation is purely read-only — reasonable inference for a validator, but not stated.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it validates, the prerequisite workflow, and the return shape. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return fields { valid, errors }, and it points to get_schema/get_registry for the nested IR structure. What the errors array contains is left implicit, a minor gap for a tool whose input is an opaque nested object.

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% and the single 'ir' parameter is already documented as 'The diagram IR document to validate.' The description adds only that it is checked against schema and registries, which is supplementary rather than filling any semantic gap. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (validates) and resource (ArchSmith diagram IR document) plus the exact standards checked: schema and governed registries (sub-layers, colors). It also names sibling tools (get_schema, get_registry) so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance: call get_schema and get_registry first, then author an IR and validate it. This tells the agent when to invoke validate relative to siblings, though it stops short of stating when validation is unnecessary (e.g., for already-validated IRs).

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