Verify Ply project setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: @source issues surface as warnings rather than failures, no files are written, and isError propagates from non-zero CLI exit. That exit-code behavior is a useful disclosure beyond the annotation set.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the checklist of what is verified, followed by severity semantics and the sibling disambiguation. Every clause carries information.

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 needn't be enumerated, yet the description still covers the one behavioral detail an agent needs (isError on non-zero exit). Combined with the read-only annotations and full schema coverage, nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the single cwd parameter (project root, defaults to PLY_CWD) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check') and a precise resource ('Ply project setup'), then enumerates exactly what is inspected: ply-ui.json, Angular/CDK, Tailwind v4 @source, ply-ui.css, icon sprites. An agent can immediately tell this is a diagnostic/verification tool distinct from init_project or update_components.

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?

Explicitly routes file-drift checking to the sibling diff_components and states it 'does not install or modify files,' which clarifies the boundary with init_project/add_components. It lacks an explicit 'use after X' or 'run before Y' trigger, so it stops just short of the 5 threshold.

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