validate_differential_pair

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Evaluate available exported rules' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, what inputs are required beyond the pair, or what the output represents. The behavior remains opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise for the limited content it conveys, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful detail.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context: what constitutes 'exported rules', how the pair and path interact, and when this validation is appropriate. It is too thin to be complete even with the schema and annotations absent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'one differential pair' but does not explain the 'path' parameter at all. Neither parameter's meaning, format, or constraints are clarified beyond the raw schema types.

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 the action 'Evaluate' and the resource 'available exported rules for one differential pair', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like 'analyze_differential_pair' by focusing on exported rules, though the meaning of 'exported rules' is not elaborated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_differential_pair' or 'validate_impedance_constraints'. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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