daz_validate_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states static analysis only, no script sent to DAZ Studio, and describes the return structure with errors, warnings, and suggestions. This fully discloses behavior and safety.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then static analysis detail, then a clear example of return values. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers behavior, input details, and return structure. No gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying 'DazScript (JavaScript) source code to validate' for the script parameter, clarifying its type beyond the schema's 'string'.

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 'Check a DazScript string for known anti-patterns before execution.' It specifies the verb (check), resource (DazScript), and scope (anti-patterns), distinguishing it from sibling tools like daz_execute that run 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 explains it performs static analysis only and returns errors/warnings, implying it should be used before execution. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like daz_execute for running scripts.

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