validate_ins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'Reports which mandatory cards are present, plus a few common mistakes' but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies any files, what happens if the input is invalid/malformed, or the format of the report it produces. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail would be expected.

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 compact at two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first line. It lists concrete card names without excess verbiage. Slightly under-specified in behavioral detail but not padded with filler. Efficient overall.

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 1 parameter and an output schema (which can carry return-value documentation), so completeness burden is moderate. The description names the specific mandatory cards, which is valuable, but it doesn't detail what 'a few common mistakes' covers or what the output report looks like. Given the output schema exists, the return format may be covered elsewhere, making this adequate but not rich.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter 'ins' is entirely undocumented by the schema. The description mentions '.ins file' in prose, which implies 'ins' is the file path or content, but it doesn't clarify whether it expects a file path, file content as a string, or something else. The description partially compensates by referencing the file type, but ambiguity remains about the parameter's exact nature.

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 what the tool does: checking an .ins file for SHELXL header cards required before HKLF/END. The verb 'Check' with the specific resource '.ins file' and the specific card names (TITL, CELL, ZERR, LATT, SYMM, SFAC, UNIT, HKLF, END) makes the purpose specific and distinguishable. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation but the purpose is clear.

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 implies usage context: use this to validate an .ins file before running SHELXL. It mentions the specific file type (.ins) and what it checks for, giving the agent a sense of when this is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this versus alternatives like run_shelx or analyze_results, or what makes this preferable over checking manually.

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