Wick

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool parses and returns structure, implying a read-only operation, but does not address potential errors (e.g., invalid file paths), performance aspects (e.g., parsing time), or output format details. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and output. Every word contributes directly to explaining the tool's function, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (parsing a script file) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output structure but misses details like error handling, input validation, or return format, which are important for a parsing tool. This results in a basic but incomplete understanding.

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 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'filePath' undocumented. The description does not explain what 'filePath' represents (e.g., local path, relative path, format), adding no semantic value beyond the schema. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter guidance reduces it to 3 as it fails to compensate for the schema 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 specific action ('parses a GDScript file') and the exact output ('returns its structure: class_name, extends, functions, signals, variables, exports, constants, and enums'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'detect_language' or 'script_list' by focusing on detailed structural analysis rather than detection, listing, or other operations.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid GDScript file), exclusions (e.g., not for non-GDScript files), or comparisons to siblings like 'gd_lsp_symbols' or 'script_list', leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the purpose statement.

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