opentrons_validate_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions checking syntax and hardware requirements but does not disclose whether the tool connects to a robot, whether it is read-only, what the output/return format is, or how errors are reported. The 'pre-check' wording hints at non-destructive behavior but is not explicit.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and scope. There is no redundant information or filler; every word contributes to explaining what the tool does.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, error behavior, and any prerequisites. It only states what the tool checks, leaving the agent without information about how to interpret results or whether a robot connection is required. This is incomplete for a 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'protocolContent' with description 'Pythonプロトコルコード'. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond repeating that the input is Opentrons Python protocol code, so the schema carries the burden and the description neither enhances nor detracts.

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 pre-checks Opentrons Python protocol code for syntax and physical hardware requirements (connected modules/pipettes). The verb 'pre-check' with specific resources distinguishes it from siblings like search_docs, upload_and_run, and get_robot_status.

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 phrase '事前チェック' (pre-check) implies this should be used before uploading or running a protocol, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like upload_and_run, nor does it mention exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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