easyar_validate_local_config

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It reveals that secret values are not returned, which is a useful safety guarantee. However, it omits any detail about validation outcome (e.g., returns success/failure, error messages), side effects, required permissions, or whether it is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior confidently.

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 conveys the core action and a key output constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No extraneous words or redundancy.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description still falls short. It does not explain what 'validate' means operationally, what the return value is (beyond hiding secrets), or any success/failure indicators. An agent would lack critical context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'projectPath' and 'configPath', including the default path for configPath. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond confirming the config file location. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Validate' and the resource 'ProjectSettings/EasyAR/easyar.local.json', and notes a key output trait (no secrets). It is sufficiently specific to distinguish from sibling tools like easyar_generate_client_config or easyar_inspect_unity_project. However, a more precise definition of what validation entails (e.g., schema checks, value constraints) would improve clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with siblings like easyar_generate_client_config (which likely creates or updates the config). The utility is implied but not explained.

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