vrm_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It enumerates specific checks performed and mentions configurable budget limits, which is more than a generic 'validates.' However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or describe the finding list format.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists specifics without waste. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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?

The tool has 2 params (one nested), no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what it does and mentions budget checks, but lacks details about the exact structure of the finding list, error cases, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of validation, more return-value detail would be expected.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'limits' controls size/triangle/texture/material budget checks, which maps directly to the nested fields. This helps an agent understand the purpose of the limits parameter.

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 a local VRM file and enumerates specific validation categories (humanoid bones, node references, meta/license, extensions, budget checks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vrm_inspect or vrma_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 context is clear: use for validation. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., vrm_inspect for inspection). The verb 'validate' implies usage but does not distinguish from siblings.

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