validate_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only validation (no modification implied), enumerates the checks, and describes the output shape (warnings array). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but validation tools are typically non-destructive and the description sufficiently covers the behavioral aspects.

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 a single sentence that packs all relevant information without fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists the valences, and ends with the return type. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the resource, the types of issues found, and the output format. It provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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?

The input schema already describes project_id as a 'Project UUID' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('a project's plan'), and enumerates the exact structural issues checked (orphan nodes, dangling conductors, etc.). It also states the return format (structured JSON with warnings array), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_plan or get_plan_summary.

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 clear context on what the tool does and what it checks, implying when to use it (when plan validation is needed). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the specific scope gives sufficient guidance.

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