Validate Jev Script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'without executing it,' which is useful confirmation, but it says nothing about what validation produces (pass/fail shape, error reporting) or whether partial validation is possible.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to scoping the operation relative to execution.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, so little is required, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at what a validation result looks like. The gap is minor but real for a validator whose only value is its report.

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% for the single script parameter, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, size, or structural guidance beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 pairs a specific verb (Validate) with a specific resource (a declarative Jev Script) and adds the scope qualifier 'without executing it,' which separates it from jevrelay_run. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool, but the execution contrast makes the boundary inferable.

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 phrase 'without executing it' implies the natural usage (check a script before running it), but the description never states when to call this versus jevrelay_run, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied, not prescribed.

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