validate_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds that it reports structured diagnostics and targets the complete configured project, which supplements the annotation context but does not elaborate on output format or edge cases such as partial validity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose and scope efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify the return value. It mentions 'structured diagnostics' but does not specify the structure, fields, or how errors are represented. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage of safety, the gap is moderate.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema). The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to explain; the description correctly scopes the operation to the entire project.

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 verb 'report' and the resource 'complete configured project', specifying three outcomes: OKF conformance, project validity, and structured diagnostics. It implicitly distinguishes from bundle- or concept-level validators like validate_bundle and okf_validate_concept by focusing on the whole project, though it does not name them.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling validation tools (e.g., validate_bundle, okf_validate_concept). The description implies a whole-project scope but does not explicitly state alternatives or when to choose it over them.

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