Validate Scripts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action of 'batch-check', which is consistent with the annotations. It does not contradict them.

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 truncated single fragment, not a complete sentence. While it starts with the core action, the truncation makes it feel incomplete and lacking clarity. It is not concise in a meaningful way.

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 3 parameters (one required), an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output, the behavior for the two scope options, or any prerequisites. More context is needed for effective use, especially because the text is truncated.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description mentions 'git-chan…' which aligns with the 'scope' parameter enum value 'changed', but does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Batch-check GDScript files (git-chan…' clearly indicates the verb 'batch-check' and the resource 'GDScript files'. The truncation obscures the full scope, but the inferred 'git-changed' from the schema makes the purpose fairly clear. However, it could be more explicit about batch vs. single validation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The existence of a sibling 'validate_script' hints at a batch vs. single differentiation, but the description provides no direct usage guidance or exclusion conditions.

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