validate_schematic

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses the return payload (valid/errors/warnings plus a compiled netlist) and, importantly, sets a scope boundary by warning that not every native GUI feature is rendered or checked — a caveat an agent needs to avoid over-trusting a clean result.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the enumerated checks, then the return contract and caveat. Every clause carries information; the only slight friction is the jargon phrase 'HB settings' and 'saved-file sections' which assume domain familiarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not spell out return structure, yet it helpfully names the key fields anyway. With one required parameter and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly complete; the only shortfall is the absence of any guidance on the path argument or on where this sits relative to inspect_schematic and build_schematic.

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 single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no indication of whether it points to a saved schematic file, a project, or a template. The parameter is conventional enough that this is a minor gap rather than a blocker, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (check/validate) and resource (schematic), then enumerates exactly what is checked: saved-file sections, plot closure, component connections, HB settings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling inspect_schematic, so an agent must infer that 'validate' means structural/format checking while 'inspect' likely means reading contents.

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 by the verb 'validate' — an agent can guess this is the pre-flight check before build_schematic or run_schematic — but the description never says when to call it versus inspect_schematic, nor does it state any prerequisite (e.g., must the file be saved first, does it work on unsaved schematics?).

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