validate_in_lab

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

The description discloses key side effects (lab teardown, persistent matrix row) and return components. However, it contains an apparent contradiction: it states 'The lab is always torn down afterward' but the schema includes a 'keep_lab' parameter (default false) that suggests the lab may be kept. This undermines transparency slightly. No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden.

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 brief (3 sentences) and front-loads the primary action. The contradiction slightly harms clarity, but overall it is efficient and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) which reduces the need to detail return values. The description covers key outcomes and persistence but omits parameter details and has a contradiction. Given the parameter count (6), more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameter meanings. It only implicitly covers 'topology_yaml' (the topology) and possibly 'platforms'. It fails to explain 'module', 'scenario', 'keep_lab', and 'timeout_s', leaving the agent to guess their roles in the validation process.

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 specifies the action ('validate'), the resource ('topology in containerlab'), and the process (deploy, run netlab validate, record verdict). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'generate_topology' and 'host_check' by focusing on validation and persistence.

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 states prerequisites (Docker, containerlab, Linux host) and gracefully degrades to 'unavailable' without them. It implies usage for validation scenarios but does not mention alternatives or when not to use, though the context is clear enough for an agent.

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