Two tools with minimal descriptions (both ~30 chars, below 50-char baseline for LLM optimization). Input schemas present but sparse: single string parameters with minimal context. No output schema documented. No error handling guidance, parameter constraints, or recovery paths. Tool names follow verb_noun pattern (validate_*) but descriptions lack WHEN/WHY context. No indication of what validation rules are applied or what the output structure contains. Composition is reasonable (two separate concerns), but lack of documentation makes it difficult for LLMs to reason about tool selection and result interpretation.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-150 chars. Example: 'validate_pset_file: Validate a Revit Property Set (PSET) definition file against IFC schema rules. Returns error/warning counts and detailed issue list with line numbers and suggested fixes. Use this when you have a file path; use validate_pset_content for inline content.'
• Document the output schema in tool descriptions or as a structured comment. Include: is_valid (bool), errors_count (int), warnings_count (int), issues (array of {severity, line_number, message, suggestion}), property_sets_count (int), total_properties_count (int).
• Add parameter descriptions with format hints. Example: 'file_path: Absolute or relative path to a .txt PSET file (e.g., /path/to/definitions.txt). File must be readable and in Revit PSET format.'
• Implement error handling that returns actionable messages. Example: If file not found, return {is_valid: false, errors_count: 1, issues: [{severity: 'error', message: 'File not found: /path/to/file.txt', suggestion: 'Check the file path and try again.'}]}.
• Add tool annotations (readOnlyHint: true) to both tools since they only read and validate, never modify state. This signals to agents that these calls are safe to retry.