validate_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the check is static, does not execute Lua, and is evaluated against docs_cache, which signals a safe read-only operation. It does not state whether anything is written, how failures are reported, or the auth/scope requirements.

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 plus a labeled context note, all front-loaded with the core action first and the usage trigger second. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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. However, with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the definition should say more about the file_name semantics and operation guarantees (e.g., non-mutating, no execution cost) to be fully sufficient for an agent.

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?

Only one parameter (file_name) at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema adds nothing. The description implies a repo-local script path but never clarifies path form, relative-vs-absolute, or what happens if the file is absent, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('statically check') and resource (repo-local Lua script) and enumerates the checked categories: APIs, event fields, object methods, enums, syntax, logical mistakes. It differentiates somewhat from siblings like validate_directory_script, but never names or contrasts with them explicitly.

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 'Context' line gives a clear trigger: 'Use before syncing generated repo-local code.' That is actionable timing guidance, but it offers no when-not conditions and does not distinguish this from validate_directory_script or validate_directory_project, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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