bulc_validate_evac

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, which the description aligns with by implying a validation/checking function. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't detail output format, error severity levels, or performance implications, relying on annotations for safety profile.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the purpose and scope. Every word contributes to understanding without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (validation of multiple setup aspects), annotations cover safety, but there's no output schema, and the description lacks details on return values or error handling. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding what results to expect from the validation.

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 input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it implicitly suggests the tool operates on the current evacuation setup without inputs, aligning with the 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 tool's purpose: 'Validate evacuation setup for errors and warnings' with specific checks on 'agents, exits, walkable areas, and stair configurations.' It uses a specific verb ('validate') and identifies the resource ('evacuation setup'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulc_validate_fds' beyond the domain focus.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists what it checks but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., after setup), exclusions, or comparisons to other validation or diagnostic tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context unclear.

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