Validate a Perch package

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of validation (static checks only) and, importantly, its limitation (not authoritative), steering the agent to the definitive check. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, but 'checks' implies read-only, and the absence of any side-effect warning is acceptable for a validation tool.

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 compact, with each sentence earning its place. It front-loads the core checks and ends with a practical routing note. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (whether a boolean, list of errors, or some other verdict). An agent needs to interpret the result, and that gap makes the description not fully self-sufficient. However, the list of checks is thorough, so it partially covers the context.

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%: the single parameter is fully documented with 'Absolute path of the package folder (the one holding mod.json)'. The description adds no extra semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies—adequate but not additive.

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 ('checks'), a specific resource ('package folder'), and enumerates the exact validation dimensions (mod.json schema, entry existence, lua parsing, widget declaration, display types). It is also clearly distinguished from sibling perch_run, which the description explicitly contrasts as the definitive check.

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 when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'The definitive check is Perch's own loader — run the package (perch_run) and read Settings → Installed mods for the loader's verdict.' This tells the agent that this validation is preliminary and gives a concrete condition for preferring the sibling.

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