validate_script

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that geometry is not retained and that output is 'OK' or an error message, but says nothing about whether the script is actually executed, whether a running engine is required (engine_status is a sibling), or how errors are formatted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key behavioral constraint, with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return-value detail is a bonus rather than a requirement. Still, for a validator the description omits the practical context an agent needs: engine dependency, cost/safety of running it, and how it fits into the preview-then-render workflow.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never clarifies whether 'script' is raw EisenScript source text, a file path, or an identifier — a meaningful ambiguity for a one-parameter tool.

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?

Specific verb (check) plus resource (EisenScript) and the exact failure class it detects (syntax/parse errors). The phrase 'without keeping geometry' implicitly separates it from render_script/preview_script, though it never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 only implied: the 'without keeping geometry' clause suggests validating before committing to a render, but there is no stated when-to-use, no exclusion, and no guidance on choosing between this and analyze_script or preview_script, which are equally plausible siblings for a script-input tool.

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