validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is checked and that the runtime check is conditional on Node availability, but does not say whether validation is read-only or mutating, whether it fails fast or returns a report, what constitutes pass/fail, or what happens when Node is absent (skipped vs. failed). For a validator this omission leaves real uncertainty.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the structural checks and then the runtime check. Every clause carries real information; the only minor cost is the parenthetical field lists, which are slightly crammed but still readable.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description must do more work. It covers scope well but omits parameter meaning, result semantics, and the behavior when Node is unavailable, leaving gaps an agent would need to resolve before invoking confidently.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description explains the underlying runtime-check behavior conceptually but never mentions the 'runtime_check' parameter or its default (true), nor what 'project' should reference. Two undocumented params with no compensating description merits a 2.

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 states a clear verb (validate) and enumerates the specific structural dimensions checked (references, weights, triangulations, UV range, curves, events), then adds the runtime loading check. This is far more informative than the bare tool name and distinguishes it from quality-oriented siblings like qa_budget and qa_character. It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the qa_budget, qa_character, or doctor siblings, nor any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is a validation step, not e.g. a runtime export or performance budget check.

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