Validate a project against FamiStudio rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is established. The description adds value by detailing exactly which invariants are verified and stating that the tool returns a list of problems, which conveys useful behavioral expectations beyond the annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: it leads with the core action, lists concrete invariants, and ends with the return type. Every clause carries useful information without repetition or padding.

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?

The description thoroughly explains what is validated, but it omits essential invocation guidance for the two ambiguous parameters. With no output schema and no parameter documentation, an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call using only this description.

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 provides no explanation of the two parameters (`project` and `projectPath`). It does not clarify whether both can be supplied, which is preferred, or how the object form differs from the path form, making correct invocation ambiguous.

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 checks every invariant FamiStudio relies on when loading a project, and enumerates specific checks like four-envelope masks, unique object ids, and pattern table sizes. This makes the resource and action much more specific than the title alone and distinguishes it from sibling validation/export/read tools.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to ensure a project satisfies FamiStudio's loading invariants. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage among the sibling tools.

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