rba_script_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the critical non-execution guarantee ('Never executes the script') and lists the static checks performed. It does not cover return format or failure behavior, but the key safety trait is well communicated.

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, front-loaded with the tool's core action, and every phrase adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has two optional params and no output schema, so descriptions must clarify inputs and expected results. It addresses inputs indirectly and omits what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, errors, report structure). For a preflight tool, this is a notable gap, but overall the description is adequate for basic invocation.

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 description must compensate. It hints that 'path' refers to a workspace Lua file and 'source' refers to provided source code, but does not fully clarify parameter interaction or expectations. The guidance is partial, not comprehensive.

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 verb ('statically inspect') and resource ('a workspace Lua file or provided source'), and enumerates the specific checks performed. It distinguishes itself from sibling rba_lua_syntax_check by adding broader static analysis (lifecycle/loop checks, dynamic loading, remote calls, transform writes) and explicitly noting it never executes.

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 context by saying 'before execution', which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer preflight use. No exclusions are stated.

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