validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the verdict and JSON fields, lists specific checks (BRepCheck, watertight, manifold, non-zero volume), and common failure causes. No mention of side effects or permissions, which are not critical for a validation tool.

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 informative but somewhat lengthy, including a list of common causes. While it packs useful information, it could be slightly more concise. Structure is functional but not optimized for quick scanning.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (mentioned in description), the description sufficiently explains the return fields. The parameter is fully covered. No gaps in context for this validation tool.

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 only parameter (object_name) is described as 'named object from show() (default: current shape).' This adds context beyond the schema's title and default, despite 0% schema description coverage. The parameter is simple and well explained.

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 purpose: checking shape validity for CAD export with a specific verb ('Check whether...') and resource ('CAD validity gate'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing export readiness and listing common failure causes not mentioned in other tools.

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 says to run before export() on parts intended for submission. It also explains what FAIL means and common causes, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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