validate_script

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), and the description adds useful behavioral context: it explicitly states headless mode and that no running game is required. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining operational prerequisites.

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 two short, impactful sentences. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds necessary clarification without waste.

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 description captures the tool's core purpose and operational mode, which is sufficient for a simple validation tool. However, without an output schema, it does not indicate what the result looks like (e.g., error list vs. success message), a minor gap.

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 fully describes both parameters (scriptPath and projectPath) with clear examples and relative path hints. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Validate a GDScript file'), the specific purpose ('for syntax errors'), and mode ('using Godot's parser in headless mode'). It also distinguishes from siblings like read_script or write_script by specifying validation and the lack of a running game.

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?

The phrase 'No running game needed' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate (static validation without launching a project). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it falls short of full guideline criteria.

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