project_check_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it says the tool loads data and checks references, implying a read-only guard, and explains the return contract {ok, problems} and what ok=True means. It does not discuss permissions, side effects, or performance, but for a local integrity check this is substantial disclosure.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then details, then parameter and return semantics. It is appropriately sized, though the issue-number parenthetical and 'chronic PDM failure mode' aside add some non-essential context.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return contract at a high level and enumerates the reference failures it catches. It stops short of fully specifying the shape of individual problem entries, but it is complete enough for an agent to choose and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by documenting the single parameter as 'path to the project.json container.' That is more meaningful than the schema's bare string type. More format detail or examples would push this to 5, but one parameter is adequately clarified.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it loads a project's manifest and item registry and checks every reference for integrity. It clearly distinguishes this pre-merge guard from general merge/validation tools by describing the exact failure mode it catches.

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 a clear usage context — run before a merge to catch broken cross-file references before they become cryptic merge failures. It does not explicitly name when-not to use it or point to sibling alternatives such as validate_manifest or merge_assembly, but the intended timing is unambiguous.

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