Wick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description states what the tool does but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid file paths, whether there are rate limits, what permissions are needed, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: a single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose with specific examples. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or unnecessary information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the full behavior: what happens on success/failure, output format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. For a detection tool with these characteristics, more contextual information would be helpful.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'given file path' which maps to the single 'filePath' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond this basic mapping. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid file path, expected formats, or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't adequately compensate for the documentation gap.

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's purpose: 'Determines the language context for a given file path' with specific language examples (GDScript, C#, or Godot resource). It uses a specific verb ('determines') and resource ('language context'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_info' or 'gd_script_status' that might also provide language-related information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this detection is needed, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'script_info' or 'gd_script_status' that might overlap in functionality. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose statement.

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