fusion_validate_comp_tool

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

Declares 'read-only' behavior, which is a key trait. With no annotations, this provides minimal safety info. However, it does not disclose what the diagnostics involve or whether any side effects exist.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with action and resource. Ideal 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?

Tool has no parameters and no output schema. Description is brief but leaves the agent uncertain about what diagnostics are run and what the result looks like. Could include expected output or scope.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), baseline is 4. However, no output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the tool's return value or diagnostic results, which is a gap for a parameterless tool.

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 runs 'read-only composition diagnostics,' specifying the verb 'run' and resource 'composition diagnostics.' It is specific and distinguishes from render or graph validation tools, though it could be more precise.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like fusion_validate_graph_request_tool or fusion_validate_render_tool. The description implies read-only intent but does not clarify prerequisites or exclusions.

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