check_syntax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is syntax-only, skips linking, produces no executable, and auto-selects a compiler when none is provided. It does not explicitly describe side effects or output behavior, but the output schema is present and the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 summary line is front-loaded and immediately states the core behavior, followed by a one-sentence rationale and a compact parameter list. No sentence is wasted; even the note about compiler auto-selection earns its place.

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?

The tool has only two parameters, both well-documented, and an output schema that presumably covers return values. The description is sufficient for safe invocation; it could additionally clarify that no runtime execution occurs, but 'syntax-only' and 'without producing an executable' already imply that.

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 0%, so parameter documentation is entirely the description's responsibility. It fully compensates: source_code is identified as the Pascal code to check, and compiler is explained with valid values ('fpc', 'dcc32', 'dcc64'), paths, and the auto-selection default behavior.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Check Pascal syntax') and explicitly states the tool produces no executable, which distinguishes it from sibling compile_pascal and run_pascal. The second sentence reinforces the distinction by contrasting it with a full compile.

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 frames when to use the tool: it is faster than a full compile and intended for quickly validating code structure. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route simple validation tasks here.

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