standalone_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the check categories, which is real behavioral content, but omits that this is a read-only operation, whether anything is mutated or auto-fixed, how findings are reported, and how project_id defaults when omitted (it is not required).

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a compact list of what is checked. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a validation result looks like (error list, pass/fail, severity). It also leaves the optional-project_id default behavior unexplained, which is the main ambiguity an agent would hit.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents project_id; baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about which project is validated when project_id is not supplied, despite it being optional.

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?

Specific verb ('Validate') plus resource ('the standalone project') and an explicit enumeration of the three check categories (pin/signal legality, duplicate bindings, missing IPs). The 'standalone_' prefix and enumerated checks separate it from cousins like pack_validate/verify, though no sibling is named directly.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer you run this to check a standalone config for errors, presumably before standalone_generate. There is no explicit 'use when / don't use when' or pointer to alternatives such as value_check or compliance.

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