analyze_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that analysis is static (no execution), enumerates detection categories, flags timeout risk, and states the return is a human-readable report. It does not explicitly state that it never modifies the script or detail failure/error behavior, but the safety profile is strongly implied.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact detection list and return-format note. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 static analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it detects, and what it returns. Minor gaps remain around explicit non-mutation guarantees and error semantics.

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?

There is one required parameter ('script') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is EisenScript source but does not describe accepted syntax or format beyond that implication.

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 ('Lint') and resource ('an EisenScript') and adds the key qualifier 'without running it'. The list of detected issues makes the purpose concrete, but no sibling tool (notably validate_script) is named to distinguish it explicitly.

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 by 'without running it' and the timeout-risk note, suggesting pre-render static checking. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus validate_script, preview_script, or render_script guidance, and no stated exclusions.

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