validate_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the return format (structured findings with codes, severity, IDs, suggestedFix) and mentions backward-compatible warnings. It implies read-only behavior but does not state side effects or performance considerations explicitly.

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 crisp sentences: first states purpose and scope, second details return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Ideal structure for quick agent comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers input, validation scope, and output structure. Missing details like error handling for invalid project_id or execution time, but still sufficient for typical 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?

Only one parameter (project_id), fully described in schema as 'Project UUID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Clearly states the tool validates a project's plan for structural issues, enumerating specific checks like orphan nodes, dangling conductors, etc. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_plan (retrieval) or save_plan (persistence).

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?

Implies usage for validation before or after plan modifications, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. No comparison to get_plan_summary which might also provide plan insight.

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