validate_project

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It states 'Read-only', which is good for a validation tool, but does not describe return format, error behavior, or effects on the project state. Moderate transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Highly concise.

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?

Complex tool with 6 params and no output schema, yet the description lacks details on return values, error handling, or comparison with sibling 'validate_run'. Incomplete for effective agent invocation.

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 83%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that inline plans are optional and that validation can be applied to ExperimentPlan/ExperimentPlanSet, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states it runs 'static and contract validation before execution' with optional inline plans. The verb 'validate' and resource 'project' are clear, and 'Read-only' clarifies it's non-mutating. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'validate_run' beyond naming.

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?

Only implies usage 'before execution' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspect_project' or 'validate_run'. No exclusions or context for selection among siblings.

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