check_tolk_syntax

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses the return contract: either an OK with a code hash or a detailed error message. It also states what the tool does not do (return full compiled output), adding transparency, though it does not explicitly mention side-effect-freeness.

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 composed of three compact sentences, each serving a clear purpose: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no redundant or irrelevant 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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavior, and use case. The sibling tools provide additional context, and nothing critical is missing.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (sources object and required entrypointFileName), meeting the baseline. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable given the schema's clarity.

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 ('Validates') with the resource ('Tolk smart contract source code') and explicitly contrasts with full compilation, distinguishing itself from sibling compile_tolk. It clearly states the tool's primary function.

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 states that it validates without returning full compiled output and emphasizes a faster feedback loop, which clearly implies use during iterative development when full compilation is not needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is strong.

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