validate_context

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, yet the description goes further: it discloses the actual mechanics (re-hashing cited source files, comparing generated docs against the stored version for projection drift, verifying evidence artifacts) and the issue format (path + reason). It also states an important limitation — 'proves provenance only, not that the content is correct' — which prevents over-trusting a passing result.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then mechanism, then safety/when-to-use, then scope caveat. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, but the description still names the return keys, which is helpful rather than redundant. For a single-parameter read-only validation tool, the description covers what it does, when to run it, and what its result does and does not prove.

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 single project_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail about project_id, so this sits at the baseline where the schema carries the load.

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 specific verb and resource ('Check that the project's Context is intact') plus the exact return shape {valid, issues, context_version}. It is clearly separable from siblings like get_context (read content) and propose_context_patch (mutate), since this one only verifies integrity.

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?

'Read-only and safe to run any time, for example before proposing a ContextPatch' gives a concrete trigger and prerequisite context. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the alternative tool it replaces (e.g., get_context for reading content), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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