martin_preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only validation' and adds the behavioral context of being a pre-flight check. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds value by confirming the no-execution guarantee.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero wasted words. The critical purpose and usage context are front-loaded. Every word serves a clear purpose.

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's complexity (17 params, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and sequential relationship. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor gaps: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a project/workspace must exist) but not critical for a validation 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 high (82%), so the schema already documents 17 parameters adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond 'validation' of these parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the weight.

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 uses specific verbs ('Read-only validation') and resource ('planned Martin run'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like martin_run (execution) and martin_plan (planning). The phrase 'last required step before martin_run' explicitly positions it in the workflow.

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 states when to use it ('before any execution or spend') and its priority ('last required step before martin_run'). It doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context of siblings and the nature of validation imply usage boundaries.

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