Validate project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses all major behavioral traits: parsing every database file, verifying associations, finding orphans, checking plugins, and scanning event commands. It also states that it returns errors and warnings.

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 one sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Integrity check of the whole project') and lists specific actions. It is concise but somewhat long due to enumeration. Every part adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values ('errors (broken) and warnings (suspicious)'). It covers the scope of the validation without missing critical details. Adequate for a tool with no parameters and no nested objects.

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 are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 for no parameters.

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 performs an 'Integrity check of the whole project' and lists specific checks (parses database files, verifies MapInfos entries, finds orphaned map files, checks plugins, scans event commands). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_map' or 'update_event'.

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 implies the tool should be used to validate project integrity, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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