check_syntax

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

With no annotations provided, the description explicitly states the key behavioral trait: no execution occurs. This is crucial for trust. The output schema likely covers return format, but the description could mention error handling or response structure.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and behavioral constraint. It lacks details on syntax validation specifics or error handling, but these are often implied or detailed in the output schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'code' parameter. The description does not elaborate on the expected format or content of the code string, merely implying it is Wolfram Language code. The single sentence adds little beyond what the parameter name suggests.

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', the resource 'Wolfram Language code syntax', and the constraint 'without executing it'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like execute_code or evaluate_cell.

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 use for syntax checking over execution, and the phrase 'without executing it' provides a clear safety context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like evaluate_cell 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.