mdpa_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does well: it discloses the specific validation checks and the deep=true behavior of round-tripping through Kratos ModelPartIO. It does not state side effects, but validation implies read-only, and the output schema covers return values.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear mode distinction. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and the deep-mode option, and the presence of an output schema handles return values. It could mention prerequisites for deep mode (Kratos installation), but the 'real Kratos ModelPartIO' phrase implies this. Overall, it's complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the deep parameter clearly (round-trip through real Kratos), while path is self-explanatory as the .mdpa file path. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema but could be more explicit about path format.

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 .mdpa files and lists specific checks (dangling references, empty submodelparts). This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_project_parameters and mdpa_inspect by focusing on MDPA file integrity.

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 when to use the tool (validating .mdpa files, optionally in deep mode) and hints at a lightweight use case with 'pure-Python lint'. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention exclusions.

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