Validate project

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the exact semantic difference between the two result classes: errors mean the deck will not run, warnings mean it runs but the result is probably wrong. That is high-value behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the opening clause, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of checks, and closed with the return semantics. The long list is justified by the breadth of validation, though the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules]' fragment is unexplained and slightly clutters the ending.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so at the level of distinguishing errors from warnings. It stops short of describing the return structure (per-check IDs, messages, counts), which would be the last missing piece for a validator.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter confusion is possible.

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?

Names a specific action (pre-flight validation) on a specific resource (the whole project) and enumerates the concrete checks performed — deck generation, mesh sanity, dangling references, T_END/output-interval mismatches, sprinkler profile combos. An agent can distinguish this from generic check tools at a glance.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger context: 'before export or run'. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as sim_preflight, bulc_check_deck, or bulc_plan_check, leaving the agent to guess which validation entry point to call.

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