validate_schematic_ir

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

The description discloses a key behavioral guarantee (non-mutating), but lacks details on validation semantics, error reporting, or output/exit behavior. With no annotations available, this leaves significant uncertainty.

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 single sentence is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. It states the action, resource, and a key constraint efficiently.

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 one-parameter validation tool, the description gives the core action and parameter type, but omits details like what validation entails, how results are returned, and any error handling. Given no annotations or output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 description clarifies that 'ir_path' refers to a local JSON file path, which the schema does not convey beyond the title 'Ir Path'. However, it does not specify path constraints (relative/absolute, extension, etc.).

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 a specific action (validate) on a specific resource (local SchematicIR JSON file) and adds a constraint (without changing semantic content), which distinguishes it from sibling PDF tools.

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 when you have a local SchematicIR JSON file to validate, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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