Validate Script

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals no side effects. The description adds the strict-parameter condition: when strict is true, it may invoke Godot --check-only for parser/type diagnostics if the executable is available. This partially discloses behavior, but it does not clarify what happens when strict is false or when the executable is missing, leaving ambiguity about whether any validation actually occurs.

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 a single purposeful sentence that names the tool's action and object. It is front-loaded and compact. It could add a bit more context, but it earns its place without wordiness.

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 read-only validation tool with an output schema, this is adequate but not complete. The description does not explain what the output contains or how validation behaves when external Godot is absent. Given the complexity of the strict flag and project_path auto-discovery, a little more context would improve completeness, but the presence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage keeps it at a minimum-viable level.

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 itself adds no extra parameter guidance beyond the schema. The strict parameter's conditional behavior is documented in the schema, and the description says nothing more about script_path or project_path, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "Validate a GDScript file." This distinguishes it from siblings like godot_validate_scene, which validates a scene, and from read/create/edit tools. It could be more specific about what validation entails, but the verb-resource pairing is clear enough.

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 implies validation is a read-only check, and the parameter 'strict' explains one mode (running Godot --check-only when executable is available). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over godot_validate_scene or other sibling tools, nor does it mention that validation may be skipped when the Godot executable is unavailable unless strict is false.

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