Validate the current project (schema + render-time warnings)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details what warnings are surfaced (emoji/non-ASCII, elements past composition end, missing duration) and that they appear even when the JSON is valid. This is valuable behavioral context for an agent.

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 compact but information-dense, front-loading the primary action and then listing specific warning types and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes unique 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?

The description fully covers purpose, behavior, and usage context; an output schema exists to handle return values. It is complete given the tool's complexity and annotations.

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?

The input schema's description for project_id is thorough, including when to omit it, and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: running the @clipkit/protocol validator and surfacing render-time warnings even when the JSON is valid. It distinguishes itself from describe_project by noting that tool is for a fuller timeline read-back, so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit temporal guidance ('Run it before you share or render the project') and names the alternative (describe_project) for different needs. This clearly answers when to use versus siblings.

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