godot_validate_script

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish this is a safe, side-effect-free operation, and the description is fully consistent with them — 'parse and validate' is read-only in nature. The description adds marginal value beyond annotations by specifying the check scope (syntax and type errors), but discloses nothing about error-handling behavior, validation result structure, or whether the file is accessed on disk. It meets the lower bar that annotations permit but doesn't exceed it.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with no filler: 'Parse and validate GDScript code for syntax and type errors.' Every word carries meaning, the verb leads, and there is nothing to cut. This is the gold standard of concision.

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 simple validation tool, the description is nearly sufficient: output schema covers return values, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) cover the safety profile, and the schema documents parameters. Minor omissions include not clarifying what happens on invalid input or how this differs from godot_validate_shader, but given the supportive structured data, the minimal description closes most of the gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was required to compensate but contains no parameter information whatsoever — script_path, code_content, and response_format are entirely unexplained by 'Parse and validate GDScript code for syntax and type errors.' Fortuitously, the input schema's own property descriptions are strong (mutual exclusivity note, example paths, format enum), so the practical harm is limited, but the description itself contributes nothing to parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Parse and validate') plus a well-scoped resource ('GDScript code') and names the concrete outcome ('syntax and type errors'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the near-sibling godot_validate_shader by naming the language, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from that alternative.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when to prefer script_path over code_content, or what prerequisites apply. The term 'validate' conveys an obvious use-case, but no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual triggers are mentioned, so an agent gets no help choosing between this and the similar validation and script-introspection tools in the sibling list.

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