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. It discloses read-only behavior, warn-by-default semantics, the specific checks performed, and the return shape ({ ok, warnings[] }). This is transparent and goes beyond what a bare schema would convey.

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 is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists specific checks. It is long but each clause adds concrete value (what is checked, the comparison to validate_project, and the return signature). No wasted words, though it could be slightly more scannable.

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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool does, its safety profile, its relationship to a sibling, and its return value. For a validation tool, this is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. The description naturally cannot add parameter meaning, but the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and it does not need to compensate for anything. The return type is mentioned, which is helpful.

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 a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('cross-file reference integrity') and enumerates detailed checks (Transfer Player targets, starting position, party/actor classes, skills, troop members, drops, effects, map tree cycles). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_project by stating complementarity and scope ('Complements validate_project (which checks command shape)').

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 clearly states this tool performs a read-only, warn-by-default audit and explicitly contrasts with validate_project, giving the agent a clear sense of when to use this versus that sibling. However, it does not mention other related validation tools like validate_event or validate_assets, so the guidance is not exhaustive but still useful.

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