Validate a library

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by listing the categories of issues detected and stating that the tool 'returns a list of warnings and errors,' which clarifies it is purely diagnostic and non-mutating.

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 compact yet highly informative. It front-loads the main purpose, then uses a scannable list of concrete checks, and finishes with the return behavior. No unnecessary filler or repetition is present.

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 single-parameter, read-only validation tool, the description covers what it does, what it checks, and what it returns. It does not specify the exact structure of warnings and errors, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema makes a slightly richer description of return format desirable, but not essential.

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%, with the only parameter 'filepath' already described as 'Path to the .PcbLib or .SchLib file.' The description does not add anything beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema does the work and the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate'), a clear resource ('Altium library file'), and enumerates the exact checks performed. This distinguishes it from read/write/repair siblings even without naming them, because the focus on integrity checking is explicit and concrete.

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 for using the tool is implied: use it when you need to check a library for common integrity issues. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it, mention alternatives like repair_library or read_pcblib, or clarify that it is a diagnostic rather than a corrective tool.

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