Проверка скриптов

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description partially explains why (headless project load executes initialization code), which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it never explicitly warns about side effects, permissions, or that boot_check may run arbitrary project code. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose+mechanism first, return value second, usage trigger last. Front-loaded and waste-free, though fairly dense.

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?

With no output schema and 5 optional params at 60% coverage, the description does cover the return shape and the primary mode switch. It leaves secondary params (limit, boot_frames, dir defaults) and the destructive side-effect unpitched, so it is good but not airtight.

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 60%; the description explains the two operating modes (check-only vs headless boot) which maps to boot_check, but dir, limit, and boot_frames are left entirely to the schema. It neither repeats nor compensates fully for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (checks syntax/compilation) and resource (.gd files), and adds the mechanism (godot --check-only, headless project load). It also defines the output (error list with files and lines), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like godot_script or godot_run.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger condition: 'Используйте после массового редактирования скриптов' (use after mass script edits). That is clear context, but there is no when-not guidance and no reference to alternative tools such as godot_lsp for lighter checks.

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