validate_requirements_tool

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious behavioral guarantees: it reports gaps and contradictions, and it will not fabricate values. This is useful context an agent can rely on when selecting and trusting the tool.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral constraint 'without inventing values' adds meaningful information without bloating the text.

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 output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the input contract for `project` remains opaque. Combined with the lack of usage guidance, the description is adequate for basic selection but not fully sufficient for confident invocation in an unfamiliar workflow.

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%, and the lone `project` parameter is an open object with no property descriptions. The description only implies that the object should hold requirements; it does not clarify expected fields, nesting, or shape, so it does not compensate for the empty schema.

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 uses a specific action ('Validate and normalize') and names its object ('project requirements'), so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like analyze_inference_project_tool, but 'without inventing values' signals a diagnostic rather than generative role.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the nine siblings. The name and action imply it belongs early in a requirements-analysis workflow, but the description does not state when to prefer it or when to use an alternative.

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