Validate USWDS Project Setup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it 'checks' for issues, leaving unclear whether the tool modifies files, is read-only, or what output it produces. No mention of side effects or prerequisites.

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?

Single sentence, concise and no redundancy. However, key information is not front-loaded; the sentence starts with 'Check provided project files' rather than stating the core function first.

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 0 required parameters, 100% uncovered schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, expected input format, or return value, leaving critical gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds minimal meaning to the six parameters. It mentions CDN usage (relates to no_cdn) but does not explain files, framework, file_paths, package_json, or migration_scope. Users must infer their purpose from names alone.

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 it validates USWDS project files for integration issues and lists specific areas like import paths, assets, scripts, CDN usage, and global CSS. This differentiates it from sibling tools like validate_uswds_markup, which focuses on markup validation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_uswds_integration_recipe or validate_uswds_markup. The description implies usage for checking project setup but provides no context or exclusions.

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