validate_simulation_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool does not run anything, implying read-only behavior, and describes the return format ('valid' or a list of problems). It does not mention potential errors or side effects, but these are minimal 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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately conveys the key behavioral constraint (no execution) and output format. Every word 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?

For a simple single-parameter validation tool, the description covers the purpose, input format, output, and the key behavioral trait (non-execution). The existence of an output schema is hinted at by the description, and the agent has enough to call it correctly without further context.

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 only defines spec_json as a string with no description. The description compensates by specifying it is a 'simulation spec (JSON string)', which clarifies the expected format and semantic meaning. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'Check', the resource 'a simulation spec (JSON string)', and the specific action 'against the schema'. It also distinguishes itself by noting 'without running anything', which separates it from simulation execution tools like run_simulation and build_and_simulate.

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 provides clear context that this is a validation step performed before running a simulation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like check_validity or specify when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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