x3d_semantic_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It details the checks performed and return value (structured report of errors, warnings, informational notes), which are key behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but the nature of a semantic check strongly implies no mutation.

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 purpose, and uses a bulleted list for readability. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the input format, the scope of checks, and the report structure. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description's definition of x3d_source as a 'Complete X3D XML document string or file path' is the only guidance. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, clarifying the accepted input formats.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Run semantic checks') and clearly defines the resource ('X3D scene'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly stating 'beyond XSD schema validation' and enumerating the types of issues detected.

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?

It implies use after XSD validation by saying 'beyond XSD schema validation,' but does not explicitly name alternative tools like validate_x3d or state when not to use it. Context is clear enough for an agent to select it for semantic authoring issues.

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