validate_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is crucial for understanding that the tool does not modify state. It also describes the type of validation (static and contract), providing behavioral insight beyond the input schema.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no redundant words, and key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, making it an example of excellent conciseness.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key features, but lacks details about return values or error handling, especially since there is no output schema. Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects), a bit more context about what the validation outputs would improve completeness. Still, it is sufficient for basic use.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'optional inline ExperimentPlan / ExperimentPlanSet validation,' which relates to the plan and planset parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the path or strictness parameters beyond what the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: running static and contract validation before execution, with optional inline plan/planset validation. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'validate_run' tool, making it clear but not perfectly distinguished.

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 provides context by saying 'before execution,' implying when to use this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives such as 'validate_run.' The mention of optional inline validation gives some guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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