we_project_validate

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine value on top by setting expectations about result limits: it reports remaining runtime/editor checks "without claiming engine validation." That caveat prevents an agent from over-trusting a pass result. It does not describe output shape, but annotations carry the safety burden here.

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 terse sentences with zero filler, and the positive scope (what is checked) is front-loaded before the negative scope (what is not claimed). Efficient, though the second sentence is slightly compressed in phrasing.

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 should arguably say what the agent receives (pass/fail, list of issues, severity), and it only gestures at this with "Reports remaining runtime/editor checks." It is adequate for a single-param read tool but leaves the result contract underspecified.

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?

There is one parameter, projectId, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description would need to compensate and it does not — it never mentions projectId or its format. However, the parameter is self-evident for a project-scoped tool, so the gap is minor rather than damaging.

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 concrete verb ("Check") and scoped resources (metadata, static HTML/CSS references), then bounds the scope by disclaiming engine validation. This lets an agent distinguish it from we_project_inspect or we_environment_probe, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of "remaining runtime/editor checks" hints that other tools cover those, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or ordering guidance (e.g., after we_project_apply). An agent must infer the workflow.

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