validate_rts_silhouette

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

Without annotations, the description lists what it checks (forward axis, components, pivots), which implies a read-only validation operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or error behaviors. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key checks. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 validation tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., pass/fail, error messages) or clarify prerequisites. However, since an output schema exists, the description can assume that provides return value details.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of parameters (root_name, asset_kind). It only vaguely hints that root_name is likely the object to validate and asset_kind might be 'vehicle'. More explicit mapping is needed.

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 specifies the tool's function as validating RTS silhouettes, listing specific checks like forward axis, cab/wheels/arms/bucket, and animated pivots. This is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_rts_asset. However, it could be more explicit about the verb 'validate' and the target 'silhouette.'

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or how it complements other validation tools. A user must infer from the name and context.

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