validate_net

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

The description discloses the specific checks performed, but does not mention what happens on failure (e.g., error or return value) or any side effects. Since there are no annotations, more detail on output behavior would improve transparency.

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—three sentences—with the main action in the first sentence and supporting details in subsequent ones. No unnecessary words.

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?

With zero parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, checks, and usage context. It could mention the output (e.g., validation report), but an output schema exists to provide that.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It compensates by explaining the tool's purpose.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: validating a Petri net topology. It lists specific checks (bipartite constraint, dangling transitions, duplicate IDs) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that are primarily for adding elements.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: after building a custom topology with add_place, add_transition, add_arc, before export. It provides clear context, though no explicit when-not cases are needed for a validation tool.

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