validate_project

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

The annotations already disclose open-world execution, non-destructive behavior, and that the tool is not strictly read-only. The description adds useful implementation context by naming Godot --check-only and scoping validation to GDScript, but it does not explain potential side effects, timeout behavior, or why the operation is not annotated read-only.

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 two tight sentences, front-loads the core operation, and adds only scope-relevant information. There is essentially no wasted text.

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 four-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description explains purpose and some targeting behavior but does not describe what check results are returned or how timeoutMs affects execution. It is adequate to start an invocation but leaves meaningful gaps around output and runtime behavior.

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 only 50%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies that scripts and pattern are alternative targeting mechanisms and that they enable targeted validation, but it says nothing about timeoutMs or the expected contents of the scripts array.

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 names a specific verb and resource: checking GDScript files via Godot's --check-only mode. It also states that all or selected files can be checked and explicitly excludes C# and gameplay validation, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools such as run_gut_tests or run_scene.

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?

It gives clear context for targeted validation by letting the caller choose scripts or a pattern, and it states an explicit exclusion: C# and gameplay are not validated. It does not explicitly route the agent to a named alternative for unsupported validation cases, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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