check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the severity model — errors block render, warnings/advice are informational — but leaves unclear whether 'apply the owner's rules' mutates the project, what permissions are involved, or how results are surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the severity semantics, then the timing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, the severity model, and when to run it. The main remaining gap is whether it modifies project state and what the check output looks like.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'project' parameter is undocumented, so the description must compensate. It only refers to "the project" in passing without saying whether that is a name, id, or path, leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (the project) and adds that the owner's rules are applied. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'typecheck', which plausibly overlaps, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Run it after a batch of edits and before render" gives concrete timing guidance, which is real when-to-use context. No when-not-to-use or explicit alternative (e.g. typecheck vs check) is named.

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