validate_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is headless and does not run the script, but does not disclose what happens on success/failure (e.g., output, errors), side effects, or any required permissions. It adds some context beyond the schema but lacks completeness for a validation tool.

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 short sentence that immediately states the core purpose and context. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler. It is effectively front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or outputs (e.g., errors, success status). It does not mention output format, logging, or any side effects. The two parameters are adequately documented in the schema, but the tool's behavior post-check is missing, leaving it moderately incomplete.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (scriptPath, projectPath) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'GDScript file', clearly stating the action: syntax/type errors. It also adds context 'headless, no run', which distinguishes it from running scripts. This differentiates it from sibling 'validate_scripts' (plural) which likely handles multiple scripts.

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 provides minimal context with 'headless, no run' but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'validate_scripts'. No prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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