project_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('It changes nothing') and describes some output behavior (conflict lines, missing/extra parts, datasheet requirements). However, it does not cover permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 long paragraph with multiple clauses, mixing purpose and output details. Key information like 'It changes nothing' appears at the end rather than upfront. It is not excessively verbose but could be better structured for quick scanning.

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 complexity (multi-faceted comparison) and the presence of a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and output categories. It could mention prerequisites like the need for a project file, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the flexible Value field and reference format. The description adds marginal context about how MPNs are found in Value fields and the datasheet requirement, but does not go significantly beyond the schema.

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 a compare-and-reconcile operation between the project file and CAD parts, with specific output details (conflicts, counts, missing/extra parts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like project_sync or project_status by focusing on validation rather than mutation or status reporting. However, the phrasing is somewhat convoluted and not front-loaded.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_status, project_sync, or project_update_part. The description implies a verification scenario but does not state exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling. Usage is left to inference.

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