mindbase_validate_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates that the tool validates layout and returns a list of missing files/dirs, which implies a non-mutating check. It could more explicitly state that it makes no changes to the project, but the term 'Validate' and 'precondition guard' provide strong behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The core behavior is front-loaded, the return value is specified, and an important usage context is included. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple validation tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete enough. It states the purpose, the exact output, and key usage context. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by describing what is returned. It could go slightly deeper into what happens when the project doesn't conform, but it is not necessary.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, projectId, with a description and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Validate'), a resource ('a project'), and a precise criterion ('conforms to the v2 layout'). It additionally specifies the return value ('list of missing required files/dirs'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mindbase_migrate or run_wiki_health.

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 explicitly states that the tool is used as a precondition guard by /mb:build and /mb:migrate, giving clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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