Validate AgentFEM project

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those. It adds value by disclosing that the checks are 'fail-closed and that the tool does not solve the project, revealing expected scope and outcome behavior beyond the structured metadata.

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?

One sentence with no filler: it front-loads the main purpose, states the check type, and adds the key limitation in the same clause. Every part 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 one-parameter tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description covers the tool's scope well enough to call correctly. It does not spell out return values, but the output schema covers that. It could be stronger by naming inspect_project as the alternative, but nothing critical is missing.

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 gives only a title ('Path' plus type for the required path parameter, at 0% coverage, so the description must compensate and does not mention path or explain what it should point to. The single parameter is intuitive from the name, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the bare schema title.

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 action ('run') and a resource ('project'), and says the checks are 'structural and compatibility' plus 'fail-closed', which makes its role fairly clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, but 'without solving the project' separates it from submit_run and suggests a pre-solve validation role.

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?

'Without solving the project' implies that the tool is intended for validation before computation, but there is no explicit statement of when to use validate_project over inspect_project or submit_run. It offers slight contextual guidance, no exclusions, but no alternative-selection rules.

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