validate_script

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description clarifies that the tool performs no write, explains the validation behavior for class_name, and notes a version-specific fix. This adds substantial context about what the tool does and does not do, with no contradiction to annotations.

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 front-loaded with the most important information and each sentence adds value. The version-specific note about v1.9 is somewhat detailed, but it prevents a known misunderstanding, so it earns its place despite making the text slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 validator with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value ('Returns whether it compiles'), all parameter combinations, and the key edge case of class_name duplicates. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without requiring additional context.

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 only describes 'path' (50% coverage), leaving 'content' undocumented. The description compensates by explaining that 'content' holds source and 'path' is a res:// path, can be used alone or with content, and that passing both enables cross-file duplicate detection. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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-resource pair ('Parse/compile GDScript') and emphasizes 'WITHOUT writing it', which clearly distinguishes it from write_script and other siblings. It also mentions the two input modes (content or path) and the return value, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 tells the agent to use this tool before write_script to catch hallucinated APIs, providing a clear alternative and usage context. It also gives concrete guidance on when to pass 'path' in addition to 'content' for existing files, covering an important edge case.

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