project_validate

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden: it conveys a read-oriented validation pass and gives the exact return contract (ok true iff problems empty), which is strong disclosure for a checker. It does not state permissions or explicitly confirm no mutation occurs, but the 'validate' framing plus return shape covers most of the behavioral picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the checks, followed by the parameter and the return contract, with each sentence earning its place. The parenthetical issue/design references (issue #143 / D1) add minor noise but little else is wasted.

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 single-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the check inventory and the return shape {ok, problems, schema, name}, which is largely sufficient. Only the absence of usage/exclusion guidance and permission context leaves a small gap.

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?

With 1 param at 0% schema coverage, the schema only offers the bare title 'Project', so the description must compensate. It does, describing 'project' as the path to the project.json container, which is meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (project.json container) and then enumerates exactly what is checked: the schema stamp, the naming convention, the conventional path fields, existence of manifest/registry, presence of the components directory, and that a named master/skeleton is a real assembly component. This detail distinguishes it from generic siblings like validate_manifest, project_check_references, or items_validate.

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?

Usage is implied — validate a project.json before relying on it — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when it is not appropriate, and no routing to alternatives such as project_check_references or project_resolve_manifest.

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