project_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain what the tool checks and that it honors thresholds, but it never clarifies whether the tool is read-only or may mutate state. The phrase 'Iterate until errors = 0' is ambiguous— it could be an instruction to the agent rather than a tool behavior.

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 dense but front-loaded with purpose and a bullet-like enumeration of checks. It is packed with useful specifics and contains no fluff, though the list is a bit of a run-on.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering what the tool does, what it honors (thresholds), and the expected usage loop. It could mention return format more explicitly, but the error-count reference implies the output.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the validation covers, though no parameter-specific guidance is needed.

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 opens with 'Run every critic,' which clearly establishes a comprehensive validation action. It enumerates specific checks (journey completeness, WCAG contrast, touch targets, etc.), distinguishing it from narrower siblings like screen_critique or coverage_report.

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: this is the go-to tool for full project validation, with an iterative loop until errors are zero and reviewer comments are resolved. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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