describe

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

Despite no annotations, the description transparently discloses the tool's behavior: it validates and returns per-node data including issues with severity levels. It implies a read-only operation without side effects, though not explicitly stated.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose sentence, bullet list of checks, parameter details, return description, and examples. No superfluous text.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and includes examples. It could mention that the tool does not modify state, but overall it's complete for understanding usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond schema defaults and examples. It restates the default depth value (3) and max (8), which is helpful but not substantial.

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 a design subtree with semantic description, role detection, and lint rules. It lists specific checks (layout conflicts, overflow, missing properties, structural issues), distinguishing it from sibling tools like inspect or find_nodes.

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 use for validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect or discover_props. No exclusion criteria or usage context is provided.

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