validate_script

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, but the description adds meaningful behavior: it validates without writing, returns compile status, handles already-registered class_name correctly, and explains the v1.9 fix for the old false positive. This gives an agent important expectations about edge cases and version-specific behavior.

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 information-dense with no filler. The core fact that this tool does not write is front-loaded, followed by parameter usage and then a necessary edge-case caveat. Every clause earns its place without being verbose.

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 two-parameter tool with read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, how to use both parameters independently and together, and a notable behavioral quirk. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 only 50% because content has no description, but the description compensates fully. It explains that content is the source to validate, path is the res:// file to validate or the destination when content is supplied, and that passing both catches cross-file class_name duplicates. This adds meaning the schema lacks.

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: parse/compile GDScript without writing it. It clearly distinguishes itself from write_script by emphasizing that this is a pre-write validation step, and 'Returns whether it compiles' makes the core purpose unmistakable.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool before write_script to catch hallucinated APIs, giving a concrete usage condition. It also explains the special case where content is destined for an existing file and path must be passed, which is actionable guidance beyond the schema.

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