tool_check_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the compile-fail short-circuit control flow and the side effect of force clearing the .rpyc cache before compiling. It omits any note on permissions, cost, or whether clearing the cache affects user data, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Behavior is front-loaded in the first two sentences, with Args and Returns sections following a predictable structure. Slightly redundant (the compile-fail behavior appears before the Args block and could be tighter), but every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly documents the return shape (dict with ok, compile_errors, lint_warnings, raw_output). Combined with the short-circuit behavior and both parameters documented, it is largely complete, with only permission/error-mode details 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents both parameters: project_path as the absolute path to the Ren'Py project root, and force as clearing the .rpyc cache with default True. That is nearly complete semantic coverage, though it adds no guidance on edge cases such as relative paths.

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 first sentence states a specific compound verb+resource: run compile then lint in one call, returning a combined result. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools tool_compile_project and tool_lint_project by making clear it is the merged operation, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied: 'in one call' and the short-circuit note ('if compile fails, returns immediately... no point linting broken syntax') tell the agent this is the combined path. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over calling tool_compile_project and tool_lint_project separately, nor names those alternatives.

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