Check GDScript for errors

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

Annotations already establish the harmless read-only profile, yet the description adds real value: it uses the real Godot engine, reports file+line for parse/compile errors, and does not launch the game. This goes meaningfully beyond the safety hints, though it omits what success/failure output looks like.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and scoped default. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operating model (real engine, error reporting, no game launch, default scope). It could note how failures surface or what counts as success, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's 'checks every script in the project unless paths are given' merely restates the schema's default for paths, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (compile/check) and resource (GDScript files), and explicitly distinguishes itself from runtime siblings by clarifying it works 'without launching the game.' An agent can separate it from run_project/launch_editor without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear triggering context ('Run this after editing .gd files') and the scoping condition ('every script unless paths are given'). It does not explicitly name the runtime alternatives it replaces, but the 'without launching the game' clause implies the boundary.

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