validate_project_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the specific checks performed, including file existence verification and comparison against solver defaults, and the conditional deep behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or what happens on failure, but the listed behaviors give a solid picture for a validation tool.

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 packs multiple validation aspects without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the long enumeration of checks could be slightly better structured (e.g., using a list). Overall, it is concise and to the point.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides a complete picture of the tool's scope and behavior. It covers the main validation steps, prerequisites for deep validation, and the target file. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance, already captured in dimension 2.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'deep' parameter explicitly ('(deep=true, needs Kratos)') and implies 'parameters_file' as the ProjectParameters.json to validate. This provides sufficient semantic meaning for both parameters, though the file parameter could be more explicitly linked.

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 identifies the verb (Validate) and the resource (ProjectParameters.json), and enumerates specific validation checks (syntax, required keys, file existence, model part names, solver_settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mdpa_validate and validate_case, which target different files or broader validation.

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 (validate a ProjectParameters.json before running a simulation) and mentions the prerequisite 'deep=true, needs Kratos', but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool. Since the tool is focused on a specific file type, the usage context is clear but not formally contrasted with sibling tools.

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