Validate Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'offline' validation, leaving critical traits undisclosed: expected side effects (e.g., file modifications), required permissions, error behaviors, or whether it produces output. For a validation operation, such details are essential.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is almost too brief, lacking detail that could be provided without sacrificing conciseness (e.g., mentioning what offline validation entails).

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?

The tool has 3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and a terse description. An agent needs more context to use it correctly: what validation performs, what results look like, and how it relates to other validation tools. The description does not compensate for the complexity.

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 100%, and each parameter has a clear schema description (e.g., 'Owning project_context_ref.v1 from Project Memory Bank'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Run offline route/editor/artifact/privacy validation') clearly states the verb (run) and specific validation domains (route, editor, artifact, privacy). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling validation tools like dl_validate_editor_runtime_contract or dl_validate_object, leaving ambiguity about which validation tool to use for a given task.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., dl_validate_editor_runtime_contract, dl_validate_object). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternative tools, forcing the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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