check_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool writes two artifacts (check.json, script.md) and enumerates the exact blocking error categories and warning categories, including the conditional voice_unknown check that depends on the TTS server running. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether outputs are overwritten, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, dense but front-loaded: the primary action and outputs come first, followed by the error/warning taxonomy. No filler sentences, though the error list is compressed enough to require careful parsing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the validation semantics and side effects thoroughly. The notable remaining gap is the unspecified 'run' parameter, which an agent needs in order to call the tool at all.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain max_overlap ('% cụm 6 từ trùng bản gốc > max_overlap') and implicitly touches max_segment_chars via the segment_too_long warning, but the required 'run' parameter is never explained, leaving the most important argument undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource chain: validates story/cast.json + script/script.json, emits script/check.json, and rebuilds script/script.md for review. It also indirectly distinguishes itself from the sibling tts_render by stating that errors here block that tool, though it does not explicitly compare against other siblings.

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?

Usage is implied through the pipeline: run this before tts_render, since errors 'chặn tts_render'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so context must be inferred from the workflow description.

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