validate

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the gate conditions (watertight, manifold, non-zero volume), common failure causes, and the consequences of a FAIL. It also lists the exact JSON fields returned, which is not in the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and return type, followed by gate details and usage instructions. It is concise (6 sentences) without superfluous text, though some sentences are lengthy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, return values, and parameter. With the output schema present, the return structure is well-documented. However, it does not explain all possible failure reasons exhaustively, but provides common ones.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description documents the sole parameter 'object_name' meaningfully: it is a named object from show() with default being the current shape. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool's purpose: to check if a shape passes a CAD validity gate before export. It specifies the return type (PASS/FAIL verdict plus JSON) and distinguishes it from the sibling 'export' tool by stating it should be run immediately before export.

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 this tool immediately before export() on any part intended for submission. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not contrast with alternative tools like 'locate_gate_defects' which might serve a similar purpose.

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