analyze_script

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or what the diagnostics format looks like. It only says it runs a checker and returns results, leaving safety and behavior unclear.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively conveys the core action and result in minimal space.

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 is simple, but without annotations or an output schema, the description should explain more about what 'diagnostics' are and any context like project selection. It is adequate as a minimum but lacks depth for an agent to fully anticipate behavior and interpretation of results.

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 only 33% (only projectPath is described). The description does not mention any of the parameters, so scriptPath and timeoutMs semantics must be inferred. It does not compensate for the low coverage or clarify timeout 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 description uses a specific verb ('Run') and a clear resource ('Godot's script checker') with a defined outcome ('return diagnostics'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_project (project-level) and create_script (creation).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_project or other diagnostic tools. It simply states the action without any contextual cues or exclusions.

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