parse_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool does not write to disk (non-destructive), returns exact line/column for every problem, and returns top-level keys for structural confirmation. This goes beyond a basic description but does not cover potential limitations like performance or workspace dependencies.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core action ('Syntax-check a snippet'). Every sentence earns its place: the first states what and how, the second gives usage guidance and explains return values. 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 (one parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description is thorough. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, that it is side-effect-free, and what it returns (line/column and top-level keys). The output schema would provide the exact return structure, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'text' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that 'text' is the Clausewitz script snippet to be checked, and 'Call this on anything you are about to write' reinforces the parameter's purpose. It does not specify constraints, but for a single string parameter this is adequate.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Syntax-check a snippet of Clausewitz script'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on syntax-checking without writing to disk, which no other sibling tool does. The added detail about returning line/column and top-level keys further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this on anything you are about to write.' This is clear and actionable, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. However, the context implies it is the go-to tool for pre-writing snippet validation, making the guidance effective.

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