validate_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing what gets validated (four specific checks) and the return structure. It doesn't mention performance characteristics, error handling, or prerequisites like needing a loaded IDS document first, but covers core behavior adequately for a validation tool.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, bulleted validation criteria, and explicit return format. Every sentence adds value: the first states what's validated, the bullets detail criteria, and the return section explains output. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, but a detailed output schema in the description, the description is complete. It explains what validation entails, documents the return structure thoroughly, and provides enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately notes that 'ctx: FastMCP Context' is auto-injected, adding useful context about parameter handling without needing to document non-existent user parameters.

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 specific action ('validate') and target resource ('current session's IDS document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'validate_ifc_model' which validates a different resource. It provides concrete validation criteria (required fields, applicability, IFC versions, XSD compliance) that make the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 by specifying it validates 'current session's IDS document', suggesting it should be used when an IDS document is loaded in the session. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'validate_ifc_model' for different validation scenarios, leaving some guidance gaps.

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