model_validate

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, confirming safety. Description adds significant behavioral context: every finding includes evidence and threshold, and it clarifies that missing checks are 'absent, not hidden'. This fully informs the agent about tool behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: first states the core purpose, second adds transparency about findings, third clarifies exclusions. Front-loaded with 'DFM-lite lint', no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage (clearance_mm), limitations, and behavioral transparency. Sibling tools are sufficiently diverse, so no risk of confusion. Complete for a linting/validation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying that clearance_mm is used for pairwise interference and clearance checks. However, it does not explain the 'path' parameter, which is self-explanatory but still relies on schema for name/type.

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?

Description clearly states 'DFM-lite lint for a B-rep model' and enumerates specific checks (kernel validity, non-manifold topology, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings that perform different operations like building, inspecting, or meshing.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (for B-rep model linting) and explicitly lists what it does NOT check (wall thickness, draft, threads, GD&T), implying when it should not be used. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for those exclusions.

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