validation_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the read-only nature apparent ('Return'), but it does not explain what 'manual validation state' means, whether prerequisites exist, or how the state is represented. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the behavioral context is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status query.

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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the target system and what is returned. It could be slightly richer by clarifying what 'manual validation state' refers to, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and this is handled appropriately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a concrete resource ('the current manual validation state' against CADe_SIMU). It is clear enough to distinguish this from the generation and inspection sibling tools, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent needing the current manual validation state would call this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with alternative tools such as inspect_cad_text or known_type_codes.

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