Validate single project

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the two-tier gate model, says it delegates to the same engine rm_gates uses with stage='fast', and clarifies that heavy hooks are correctly excluded. It stops short of describing failure output or filesystem side effects from running hooks, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds implementation and gate-model context that directly supports correct invocation. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope or routing the agent to the heavy-stage alternative. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, delegation, and the important exclusion of heavy hooks. The safety profile is handled by annotations. The main remaining gap is that the sole parameter is not described anywhere, so an agent still lacks guidance on repo_path. Otherwise the definition is complete enough to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema does not explain repo_path at all. The description mentions 'a single repository' but never defines the expected path format, whether it is a filesystem path or a project identifier, or any constraints. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema information.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Validates a single repository by running its FAST-tier gates.' It explicitly scopes the operation to fast-tier gates and distinguishes it from the heavy-stage alternative by naming rm_gates action=run stage=heavy. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

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?

It states when to use this tool (fast-tier validation of a single repository) and when not to use it for heavy hooks, directing the agent to the explicit alternative rm_gates action=run stage=heavy. The exclusion and alternative are both concrete, leaving no ambiguity about the intended use case.

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