proj_validate_xml

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false), and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds concrete mutation context: fix=true applies safe fixes with .bak written, and regenerate_lineids rebuilds LineIds blocks. It could state whether regenerate_lineids also writes backups, but it adds meaningful detail beyond annotations.

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?

One dense sentence enumerates the validation checks, followed by a second sentence covering the two mutation flags. The purpose is front-loaded and no word appears wasted.

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 multi-check validation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers validation scope and primary flags adequately. It leaves unclear how name selects files and whether regenerate_lineids creates backups, but those gaps are minor given structured fields cover return values and safety.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains fix=true and regenerate_lineids behavior well, but the name parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters unexplained. Partial compensation for low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (structural validation) and resource (.TcPOU/.TcDUT/.TcGVL files), then enumerates the exact checks (XML well-formedness, GUID uniqueness, LineIds, EOF newline, etc.). This is specific enough to distinguish it from code-oriented siblings like proj_lint or proj_scan, even though it does not name them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are provided; it only describes capabilities. An agent must infer that this is the tool for structural XML checks on those file types, with nothing telling it whether to prefer proj_lint or when validation is appropriate.

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