engi_validate_project

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a non-destructive validation behavior but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or error handling. The brief statement is adequate but lacks depth.

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 7-word sentence, which is extremely concise. While every word is meaningful, the brevity sacrifices clarity needed for other dimensions. It earns points for being waste-free but loses some for being too terse.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain validation rules, expected input formats, or return value structure. The agent is left guessing how to properly call the tool.

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 only 33% (only 'root' has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of 'checks' or 'severity' parameters. The agent gets no help understanding what validations are performed or how severity affects output.

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 'Validate' and specifies the resources: IDs, frontmatter, and basic document relationships. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like engi_doc_read (read-only) and engi_frontmatter_patch (modification), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how it compares to sibling tools like engi_context_pack or engi_graph_query that may also deal with document validation.

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