sketch-validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it lists files and what it validates, but says nothing about the return format or failure behavior; with this annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and the validated convention front-loaded, and the usage timing second. 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?

For a single-param read-only validator with no output schema, the description covers what it checks, what it lists, and when to run it. Only a note on what a failed validation reports (or return shape) is missing.

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 100% and the single param already documents 'Path to sketch folder or .ino file'. The description's mention of the '<name>/<name>.ino' layout adds context but not new parameter syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 holds.

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 ('Check') and resource ('sketch folder layout') and even names the exact convention it validates ('<name>/<name>.ino') plus the side effect of listing files. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compile, preprocess, and sketch-new.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to run it ('Run before compile to catch layout mistakes'), which is strong contextual guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it isn't a full routing instruction.

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