project_validate_design_spec

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral traits, but it only says 'Validate'. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only check, what constitutes failure, whether it modifies the PCB or spec, or what the output schema contains. The agent is left without safety or side-effect information.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and target. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant wording, earning its place entirely.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (which presumably documents the validation results), the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it lacks context about what 'resolved design spec' means or how this relates to other project lifecycle steps, preventing a perfect score.

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 and a trivial empty schema, so the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description correctly implies that it relies on the active project context without needing additional inputs, adding no unnecessary parameter detail.

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 ('Validate') and names the resources ('resolved design spec' against 'active project PCB'), clearly indicating a consistency check. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_design or project_quality_gate, but the target resources are unique enough to suggest a distinct purpose.

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?

No information is provided about when to use this tool versus the many other validation and quality-gate tools listed as siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or references to related steps like project_infer_design_spec.

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