validate_script

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must bear full burden. It notes 'headless, no run', indicating no side effects, but does not specify output (e.g., returned errors) or whether project state is unchanged. Adequate but lacking detail.

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?

Single sentence that is clear, front-loaded with verb and resource, and free of extraneous words. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple validation tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it omits information about return values (e.g., whether it returns errors or a success indicator), which could be relevant for the agent.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the verb 'check' and resource 'GDScript file', specifying 'syntax/type errors'. The additional 'headless, no run' clarifies non-execution. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'validate_scripts' (plural) which may validate multiple files.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for single-file validation, but no exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like 'validate_scripts'.

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