validate_script_deep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the validation process (using real compiler), the types of issues detected, and the return format (structured JSON with error details). It does not mention any side effects or destructive actions, but for a validation tool, the behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds unique value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. It provides enough context for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool (for deep validation). However, it could mention that the project path must be valid and the script must exist, though these are implied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantic meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates their purpose. Thus, no extra value.

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?

Description clearly states it performs deep GDScript validation using Godot's real compiler, distinguishing it from the sibling validate_script by being 'more thorough'. It explicitly lists the types of errors detected (syntax, type mismatches, etc.), leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Description mentions it is more thorough than validate_script, providing a direct comparison. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other options, nor does it list prerequisites or contexts where it is inappropriate.

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