validate_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it performs static analysis and does not execute code. This goes beyond a simple 'validates code' by clarifying the non-execution aspect, which is important for safety. However, it does not specify what happens on failure (e.g., return format or error details), leaving some room for improvement.

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 concise, with two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and behavior, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It distinctly separates itself from execute_code and list_supported_languages. However, since there is no output schema, it could have mentioned the return type or response structure, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states. It refers to 'code syntax' and 'code validity' but does not elaborate on parameter format or constraints beyond the schema's enum and type definitions.

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 validates code syntax via static analysis without executing it. The verb 'validate' is specific, and the phrase 'without executing it' distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_code.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to check code validity before execution or to help debug syntax issues.' It implies when to use it (before running code) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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