sanity_check_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the audit covers and that it is 'line-aware,' but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies the script, what the output looks like, or any side effects. For an audit tool, the lack of explicit read-only confirmation and return format is a significant transparency gap.

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, efficient sentence. It front-loads the purpose ('Performs a line-aware Luau audit') and then lists the audit categories in a compact enumeration. Every word contributes to conveying scope without unnecessary 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?

This is a moderately complex audit tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description explains what aspects are audited but fails to describe the output format, how results are returned, or how to interpret findings. An agent would not know what to expect after invoking the tool, making the description incomplete for this complexity level.

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 input schema covers both parameters (script_name and script_content) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool performs a 'line-aware Luau audit' and enumerates the specific audit dimensions (strict typing, lifecycle, remote validation, etc.). It is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling audit tools like audit_lifecycle or validate_remote_contract, which cover overlapping areas.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specialized audit tools listed among siblings. The description implies a comprehensive audit use case but does not state exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer when a broad audit is needed versus a targeted one.

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