Guard docs against code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the return contract structure (status, findings, suggestions, nextStep, etc.), which helps the agent understand what to expect. No contradictions.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the action, the second lists the output. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value (full guard JSON contract with fields like status, findings, suggestions, etc.). The tool is simple (one optional param), and the description covers everything needed for correct 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (projectDir), and the description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 action ('Run every enabled DocGuard validator'), the resource ('project's canonical docs'), and the output ('full guard JSON contract'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like docguard_diagnose or docguard_score by indicating it runs all validators comprehensively.

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 implies usage for a full validation run but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., diagnose for specific issues, score for scoring). No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is provided.

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