run_full_validation

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that live checks are read-only and that reports are written, but it omits important details such as whether reports overwrite existing files, required permissions, or any side effects beyond writing.

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 of 14 words, front-loading the core functionality and output format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the simple schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers basic functionality but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., connection required for live checks, project state) and the exact scope of 'full validation'. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 states 'optional read-only live checks' which maps to the 'live' parameter, but it does not explain what happens when 'live' is false (i.e., only offline checks) or elaborate on the distinction between offline and live checks.

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 'run' and the resource 'full validation', and it distinguishes the tool by mentioning offline and live modes and the output format. However, it does not specify exactly what 'full validation' entails, leaving some ambiguity about the scope of checks.

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 that this tool runs all validation checks, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the individual validate_* tools (e.g., validate_current_project). A sentence like 'Use this to run all checks at once instead of running each validation individually' would improve the score.

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