Validate hardware configuration names

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It describes the checks performed and the outcome (tells whether safe to continue), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. This is a gap for a validation tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states the tool category, second lists specific issues and outcome. No wasted words.

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 simple validation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic function. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., boolean, report) or mention whether the tool modifies anything. Missing output details reduce completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the projectPath parameter. It does not explain default behavior or how the path is used.

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 clearly states the tool is a 'pre-flight check for robot configuration mistakes' and lists specific issues it flags (incompatible device types, cross-file sharing, unresolved constants), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_project_hygiene which likely check code style.

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 term 'pre-flight check' implies use before building or deploying, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like check_project_hygiene, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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