validate_library_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is validated but does not disclose safety (read-only vs. mutation), side effects, or what the output/report format looks like. This is a significant gap for a validation tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'validate' and enumerates the specific attributes checked. No fluff or redundant details.

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 does not explain return values, error behavior, or prerequisites like requiring a loaded library. With zero parameter documentation and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters (path, name, stable_id). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to identify which pattern to validate.

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 library patterns, specifying the exact aspects checked: pad numbering, styles, geometry, holes, and annular rings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_pin_pad_mapping and validate_library_component.

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 implies usage for validating library pattern properties but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_library_component or get_library_pattern. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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