validate_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what effects it has on the system, or how errors/validation results are communicated. The minimal description leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. It is concise, though it could be expanded slightly to provide more value without becoming 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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., git repository for 'changed' scope), or how the tool behaves with different parameter combinations.

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 100% and the description paraphrases the 'scope' enum values already documented in the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides for any parameter. Therefore, baseline score of 3 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 states the tool performs batch-checking of GDScript files, distinguishing it from the sibling 'validate_script' (singular). The phrase 'git-changed by default, or all' further clarifies scope. However, it does not specify what 'check' means (e.g., syntax validation, linting), leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage for batch validation of GDScript files, with a default scope of git-changed files. It provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., the singular 'validate_script'), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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