validate_directory_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether validation is side-effect free, what the default-true 'sync' flag actually does, or whether validation can write/sync anything — a material omission for a tool that may mutate state.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed by usage context; every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the undefined 'sync' parameter and the lack of differentiation from validate_directory_script leave real gaps for an agent deciding how to call this 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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description hints at a directory target but never defines the 'directory' argument's expected form, and it completely omits the 'sync' parameter, which defaults to true and therefore has real behavioral consequences.

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 (every Lua script in an outside project's scripts/ or drafts/ folder), with clear project-wide scope that separates it from the single-target validate_script. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named validate_directory_script sibling, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

"Use for project-wide pre-sync checks and to find all files with errors, warnings, community-only APIs, or undocumented calls" gives concrete when-to-use context and the reporting scope. No when-not-to-use condition or named alternative (e.g. validate_script vs validate_directory_script) is offered.

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