validate_openscad_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool compiles code without generating geometry and returns structured error/warning information with line numbers. This adequately discloses the behavior for a validation tool, though it omits potential side effects (likely none) or permissions.

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 concise: two sentences in the main part followed by a docstring. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or missing words.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input (code) and output (dict with valid, errors, warnings). It lacks details on edge cases or performance, but the core information is present.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes a docstring for the 'code' parameter, specifying it is OpenSCAD source code to validate. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition, though it lacks details on format or length constraints.

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 OpenSCAD code without generating geometry, with a specific verb (validate) and resource (OpenSCAD code). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool generate_model by suggesting its use before calling that function.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to check code before calling generate_model with OpenSCAD.' It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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