validate_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: 'Read-only' and the return shape ('aggregated, map-tagged warnings'), plus the exact placement conditions checked. It omits things like permission requirements, failure behavior, or whether it aborts on first error.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the long parenthetical lists concrete checks that earn their place. The middle clause is dense and slightly hard to parse, but nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately describes the return ('aggregated, map-tagged warnings'). It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could clarify edge behavior such as whether validation halts on the first problem.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The schema has nothing to document and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (event command lists of every map in the project), plus a second concern (event placement rules). The project-wide scope implicitly distinguishes it from the single-event sibling validate_event, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Explicitly frames when to use it: 'for auditing before or after a batch of edits,' which gives a clear operational context. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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