pencil2d_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses what is examined (frames, XML, assets) and 'sanity and health validation' implies a non-mutating operation, but it never states that the file is left unmodified, whether it can repair anything, or whether issues are thrown as errors or returned as a report.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the specific checks, with no filler. It is efficient, though the enumerated checks could be separated structurally for easier scanning.

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?

For a single-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description should say what the agent gets back (a report of issues? a boolean?) and what happens when the project is invalid. Those gaps matter more here than for a mutation tool whose effects speak for themselves.

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 is a single required parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Path to the .pclx file'). The description adds no detail about path format, expected extension validation, or relative vs absolute paths, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (validate a Pencil2D project) and enumerates the checks performed: frame continuity, XML integrity, asset health. It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like pencil2d_add_frame, but it never explicitly contrasts with pencil2d_inspect, which is the closest alternative.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to run this versus pencil2d_inspect, or whether it should be a pre-export gate. The word 'deep' faintly implies a heavier check than a shallow inspect, but no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is stated.

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