avl.validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral constraint 'No solver execution,' which confirms the tool is a safe, non-executing check and goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, so no conflict is present.

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 a single 12-word sentence plus a short clarifying clause. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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?

For a simple one-parameter validation tool, the description covers purpose and safety well, but it does not disclose return value semantics, such as whether validation failures return errors, a report, or exit codes. Since there is no output schema, this absence leaves an agent uncertain about how to interpret the tool's result.

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 schema has one required string 'model_path' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain this parameter, though 'text grammar' hints that model_path points to a text-format model file. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description still leaves format, path conventions, and required file type to inference.

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 states a clear verb and subject: 'Validate supported text grammar, dependencies and mesh limits.' This makes the tool's purpose explicit. It also adds 'No solver execution,' which helps distinguish it from solver-running siblings, though it does not name those alternatives or clarify what 'text grammar' means in context.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. Saying 'No solver execution' suggests this tool is a pre-flight check before running the solver, but it does not provide specific when-to-use guidance or name alternatives like avl.run or avl.inspect. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the sibling list and the word 'Validate.'

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