check_script

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool returns parse errors/warnings and does not run the game, but does not mention side effects (e.g., file modification), return format, or invocation details beyond 'using Godot --check-only'. The core behavior is clear but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint (without running the game). Every piece of information is necessary and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains the function and return type (errors/warnings). However, the lack of output schema means the description could have been more specific about how errors/warnings are returned (e.g., as a string or structured list). It meets the minimum viable standard but leaves room for precision.

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 covers both parameters (projectPath and scriptPath) with detailed descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 parses/compile-checks a GDScript file using Godot --check-only, distinguishing it from siblings like run_and_captured_errors by specifying it does not run the game. The action verb 'check' and resource 'script' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies use for checking syntax before running, and contrasts with 'without running the game', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_script or run_and_capture_errors. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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