bulc_validate_fds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds context about what gets validated (mesh consistency, fire source setup, etc.), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like output format, error handling, or performance characteristics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences: one stating the core purpose and another listing specific checks. Every word adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the main action. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 FDS aspects), annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive), but there's no output schema. The description adequately explains what is validated but doesn't detail the return format (e.g., error list, summary report) or how results are presented. For a validation tool, more output context would be helpful, though the purpose is clear.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since none exist. It effectively compensates by focusing on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, aligning with the zero-parameter baseline.

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 FDS configuration for errors and warnings' with specific checks listed (mesh consistency, fire source setup, boundary conditions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bulc_validate_evac' by focusing on FDS rather than evacuation validation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other validation or diagnostic tools beyond naming differences.

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 through 'Validate FDS configuration' and the listed checks, suggesting it should be used before running simulations or after configuration changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'bulc_preview_fds' or 'bulc_get_fds_status', nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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