validate_script

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. 'Check' and 'Lists every problem' imply a non-mutating diagnostic and describe the return shape (per-problem paths), which is useful. However, it never explicitly states the file is not modified, whether problems are errors vs warnings, or whether validation stops at the first failure.

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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the return behavior second. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive tool with a fully described schema, the definition covers what it does and roughly what it returns (a list of problems with paths). Minor gaps remain about output format and rule severity, but no output schema exists so this is largely adequate.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'file' parameter is documented with an example filename and a pointer to list_scripts. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond 'a script file', so the schema does all the work — baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — check a script file against the editor's structure rules — and clearly separates it from siblings like read_script, create_script, or edit_beat, which do not validate. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the validation framing is unambiguous.

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: an agent can infer this should be run to verify a script's structure, plausibly after edits, but the description never says when to call it, whether it is a prerequisite before other operations, or what alternatives exist. No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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