sieve_check_script

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 does disclose the key behavioral trait that nothing is persisted ('without saving it') and that validation uses the server's own compiler, catching unsupported extensions. It stops short of stating auth requirements or how the error/warning payload is shaped, but the safety profile is clear.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the non-persisting constraint, then the return values, then the sibling relationship. Every sentence carries distinct information with zero padding.

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, single-required-param tool this covers purpose, non-persistence, return categories, and sibling routing. With no output schema, the error/warning payload structure is only described at a high level, which is the one remaining gap.

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% and each parameter (content, accountId, accountName) is documented in the schema, including the RFC 5228 require-line requirement and the single-account fallback. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (validate) and resource (Sieve source) plus the scope constraint 'without saving it', and explicitly distinguishes itself from sieve_put_script. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus the other 14 siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (sieve_put_script) and its relationship — put runs this automatically — and gives the selecting condition: 'use it directly while iterating on a draft.' Nothing about when to reach for this tool is left to inference.

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