Validate file / scene

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: when a Goxel build is available, the file is loaded with Goxel's parser and compared voxel by voxel; without 'path', an in-memory scene is validated through a temporary copy. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 three front-loaded sentences with no obvious filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the next two add relevant behavioral detail about parser comparison and in-memory validation.

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?

For a validation tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what the validation result looks like (e.g., success/failure format, detailed error reporting) or how 'use_goxel' affects the validation. The purpose and main behavior are covered, but return-value expectations and one parameter's effect remain unclear.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the optional 'path' parameter's behavior (in-memory validation when omitted), but it does not explicitly describe the 'use_goxel' parameter's role or what setting it to false disables; the Goxel comparison behavior is mentioned only as a conditional capability.

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 states a specific verb ('Check the integrity') and resource ('.gox / .vox / .txt file' or in-memory scene), including the aspects validated (structure, voxels, colors). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with goxel_info or goxel_open_scene.

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 conditional behavior: with 'path' the file is validated, without it the in-memory scene is validated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over goxel_info, goxel_open_scene, or other siblings, nor any when-not conditions.

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