validate_scad_parameters

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions validation but does not disclose return format, side effects (e.g., read-only), error behavior, or required permissions. For a mutation-free validation, this gap is significant.

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?

Description is relatively concise but includes an 'Args' section that largely duplicates schema information. Could be more front-loaded and remove redundancy to improve efficiency.

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 or annotations, description lacks information on return value (e.g., boolean, list of errors), error handling, or prerequisites. A validation tool should clarify what the output represents.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: scad_code is 'OpenSCAD source code string' and material is 'Optional material ID (e.g., pla, petg)'. However, it could specify allowed material IDs or format more precisely.

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?

Description clearly states validation of OpenSCAD parameters against material design limits and gives specific examples. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_openscad_code (which likely checks syntax) by focusing on parameter values vs material limits, but could explicitly name the sibling for clarity.

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?

Implies usage before compilation/printing ('Catches issues before compilation and printing'), but does not explicitly state when to avoid or mention alternative tools. With many sibling tools, more direct guidance would help.

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