validate_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'dry-run' and 'without running the time loop', conveying non-invasiveness. It also lists the exact checks performed, which is transparent about 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope and specific checks. It is well-structured with a colon-led list, containing no extraneous information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers the dry-run scope and the validation items. It does not mention prerequisites or explicit side effects, but 'dry-run' implies none. Slightly more detail on when to use it could elevate completeness.

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 case_dir or parameters_file. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving potential ambiguity about parameters_file's role.

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 performs a 'dry-run check of a case directory' and enumerates specific validation steps (JSON validity, required keys, file existence/parsing, model references, solver settings). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_simulation or validate_project_parameters.

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 pre-run validation without launching the time loop, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though sibling tool names suggest such comparisons.

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