verify_d365fo_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what is checked (disk existence at the AOT path and project file reference) and the full-project scan behavior when `objects` is omitted. It does not detail failure handling or return values, but this is not required given the read-only nature and no output schema.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. There is no wasted wording or 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?

The description covers the main behavior, an explicit alternative, and key parameter semantics. While it does not describe the return format or failure behavior, no output schema exists and the read-only annotation lowers the burden. It is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that `objects` is optional and omitting it triggers verification of the entire project, and that `projectPath` is required for the project-reference check. This helps the agent decide which parameters to supply.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('D365FO objects exist on disk at the correct AOT path and are referenced in the .rnrproj project file'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from d365fo_file by explicitly recommending this tool over PowerShell checks for create results.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use instead of PowerShell to check d365fo_file(action="create") results' and clarifies the alternative behavior for whole-project verification when `objects` is omitted, including the projectPath requirement. This clearly tells the agent when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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