validate_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the types of checks (vocabulary/structure, conditional geometry), the condition (if nodes are positioned), and the return format ({ ok, problems }). It does not mention side effects or error behavior, but for a validation tool this is adequate.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral details are packed efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input shape, the checks performed, and the return format. It references a prompt for the full shape, which is a reasonable pointer. Missing details like problem format are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the schema's description of 'spec' is vague ('A diagram IR object (see the diagram_from_requirement prompt for the shape)'). The tool description adds meaningful structure by specifying diagram_type/nodes/edges, which goes beyond the schema and clarifies the expected shape.

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 verb 'Validate' and the resource 'diagram spec', and specifies the object shape (IR object with diagram_type/nodes/edges). It distinguishes itself from all siblings, none of which are validation tools.

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—you would validate a spec before using it—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Since there are no direct sibling validation tools, the context is implicit but not explicit.

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