validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: the tool does not generate output, and it returns errors and warnings. These are central for safe invocation, though it does not explicitly discuss side effects 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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. The core purpose and key constraint (no output) are front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated in the second sentence.

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 simple validation tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately conveys purpose, return behavior, and the no-output constraint. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could optionally note that the returned errors/warnings are syntax-related.

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%, so both parameters (scad and parameters) are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Validate') with a clear resource ('OpenSCAD code syntax') and immediately distinguishes itself from rendering/previewing tools by stating 'without generating output'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like render and preview.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you need to check OpenSCAD syntax without producing output. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the behavioral distinction from rendering/prevving is strong enough context for an agent.

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