validate_syntax

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

No annotations provided, but description clearly states it only does syntax validation (no semantic analysis), is fast, and requires load_project. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, but the nature of validation implies it. Could be improved by confirming it is read-only.

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?

Very concise: one paragraph for description, another for usage and output. No unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, comparisons, and prerequisites sufficiently for the agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds value by showing usage patterns (filePath vs content as alternatives) and clarifies the output nature. The parameter semantics are well-covered.

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?

Clearly states "Quick syntax-only validation for a file or inline code." Distinguishes from sibling get_diagnostics by specifying it's only for syntax checks and faster.

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?

Explicitly compares to get_diagnostics: "Much faster than get_diagnostics - use for quick syntax checks." Also states prerequisite: "Requires load_project to be called first." Provides usage examples with syntax.

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