Validate Study

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying no solver is launched and that the tool reports diagnostics rather than failing silently, which tells the agent what to expect from a call.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core action and the no-solver guarantee front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description correctly routes the agent to get_capabilities.study for the study shape. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify whether validation failures are returned as data or raised as errors, though the output schema likely covers this.

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% and the single parameter's schema description already points to get_capabilities.study and simulation://help. The description repeats the same pointer without adding field-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (validate a complete study draft) plus the observable outcome (explains missing or unsupported inputs). The clause 'without launching Gmsh or Elmer' implicitly distinguishes it from run_study, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'complete study draft' implies this is a pre-flight check applied to a finished draft rather than a partial one, which hints at when to call it. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives such as prepare_study or run_study, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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