validateSchematic

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

Description discloses what the tool checks (components, ground, directives), which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it does not state whether the tool modifies anything or returns errors, leaving some uncertainty about effects.

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 concise sentences: first states the primary purpose, second lists key checks. No redundant information. Every sentence provides useful content.

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its main validation areas. It could mention that results are provided via the output schema, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, but the description clarifies that asc_path refers to a .asc schematic file. This adds basic meaning beyond the schema's title. However, it does not detail path requirements (e.g., absolute vs relative) or expected format, so value added is modest.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates a .asc schematic for simulation readiness. It lists specific checks (components, ground flag, simulation directives), which helps distinguish from siblings like lintSchematic that may check different aspects. However, it could more explicitly differentiate between validation and linting.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lintSchematic or other verification tools. The context implies use before simulation, but no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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