validate_gdscript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the file is not run, but does not explain what validation entails, whether it reads the file, or what the return/output might be. This is a significant 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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no redundant information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand behavior. It lacks information about validation results, error handling, and any prerequisites, leaving the tool under-specified.

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 schema has one `path` parameter with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It refers to 'a GDScript file,' which gives some meaning, but it does not specify path format, whether the file must exist, or any constraints on the path.

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 validates a GDScript file, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool run_gdscript by explicitly noting 'without running it.'

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 'without running it' provides clear context that this is for validation when execution is not desired, implying a contrast with running tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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