validate_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it declares read-only and warn-by-default semantics (i.e., not blocking, no mutation), and states the return shape { ok, warnings[] }. It stops short of disclosing failure modes or how warnings are structured.

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 purpose and read-only/warn-by-default guarantee are front-loaded in the first clause, and the return shape closes it out. The middle is one very long run-on enumeration of checks, which is dense but each clause names a real integrity category, so it earns its 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?

For a zero-parameter validator with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the full checklist of what is validated, the warning-only behavior, and the return shape { ok, warnings[] }. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or scope argument is 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 and resource ('Audit cross-file reference integrity across the whole project') and immediately distinguishes scope from the closest sibling by noting it 'Complements validate_project (which checks command shape)'. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from validate_project without opening either 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?

Provides clear context: it is read-only, warn-by-default, and positional relative to validate_project. It does not, however, state an explicit trigger ('run after edits', 'run before export') or any exclusion conditions.

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