Validate Graph

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the full burden; 'Check ... locally' does imply a non-destructive, client-side operation that doesn't touch the backend, which is useful. However it never explicitly states it is read-only, whether it mutates the graph, or whether failures block subsequent operations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the four check categories with zero padding. The fragmentary style is terse but every element earns its place.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there are no parameters, so the remaining gaps are small but real: whether a graph must be loaded/open first, and what the agent should do with a failed validation. For a simple validator this is adequate but not complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description does not misuse the space with parameter talk.

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+resource (validate the graph) and enumerates exactly what is checked: missing blocks, port counts, unconnected blocks, no sink. That level of specificity distinguishes it from siblings like show_graph or save_graph, though it never names those siblings 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 word 'locally' implies this is a pre-deploy/pre-save check rather than a backend operation, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given and no alternative (e.g. deploy_graph) is named. Usage must be inferred.

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