Validate packaging metadata

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds detail on the types of errors and warnings reported, confirming the tool's behavior without contradicting 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?

A single, dense sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates purpose, scope, and output types.

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 what the tool does and its output categories. It lacks explicit return format but is sufficient for an agent to understand its function.

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 single required parameter 'project' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'the project's saved packaging.json', providing context that 'project' identifies a project, but does not specify format or allowed values. This partially compensates but not fully.

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 tool runs build-preflight packaging checks on a project's packaging.json. It specifies what it reports: hard errors (missing/invalid name/description) and advisory warnings (no keywords, missing displayName/longDescription). This distinguishes it from siblings like save_packaging_config and suggest_packaging.

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 implies usage for pre-flight validation before packaging, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage context.

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