validate_project_structure

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully explain behavioral traits. It does not specify what 'correctness' means, whether the tool is read-only, what checks are performed, or what output is returned (e.g., boolean, list of issues). This is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, lacking details that would not add excessive length.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context about return values, side effects, and validation scope. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for an agent to interpret correctly.

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?

The schema already describes the only parameter (project_path) as 'Path to the Godot project root'. The description adds that the tool validates folder structure and configuration, but does not elaborate on the parameter's use beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool validates a Godot project's folder structure and configuration for correctness. It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('Godot project's folder structure and configuration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_script or validate_export.

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 other validation tools (e.g., validate_build_settings, validate_export). The description lacks any context for selection.

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