validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool performs only syntax checking, skips full rendering, and is fast, which conveys a non-destructive, lightweight validation behavior. It could add explicit output/error details, but the core behavioral distinction is present.

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 compact, front-loaded with the key purpose, and wastes no words. The phrase 'without full rendering' is the key distinction, and 'Fast.' adds a useful performance trait without padding.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-nested-schema tool, the description plus schema provides sufficient information to invoke it correctly and understand its purpose. The main gap is the lack of explicit return/error behavior—there is no output schema and the description does not say what the agent sees when validation fails—but this is a minor gap for a simple syntax checker.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter as 'OpenSCAD source code to validate', giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no new parameter details beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a concrete verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('OpenSCAD code'), and a clear scope ('syntax errors'). The phrase 'without full rendering' immediately distinguishes it from the render-family siblings, so an agent can tell it apart from render, render_turntable, and render_multiview without opening schemas.

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 implicitly guides usage by signaling that this is the fast syntax-check path and that full rendering is not performed, which is enough to indicate when to choose it. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use it when a rendered model/view is actually needed.

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