Edtb Designer Check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return shape and the CLI_NOT_FOUND error with installation instructions, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the check is read-only, whether it can modify the project, or what side effects the external CLI may have.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose and command. The return/error information is packed efficiently, though the second line is somewhat cryptic and could benefit from a tiny bit more context.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves a notable gap around 'projectPath'. It also omits any usage context, such as when validation should be run or how the result should be interpreted.

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 adds meaning to 'scope' by listing 'project' | 'extension', but it gives no explanation of 'projectPath', which is the other parameter.

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 action ('Проверка проекта/расширения') and the underlying commands ('ring edt validate or 1cedtcli'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like edtb_form_compile or edtb_apply_mutations, which are more specialized mutation or compile operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The scope values are listed but not explained in terms of decision-making.

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