validate_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It states the tool 'validates' but does not clarify whether it is a read-only operation, what specific issues it checks for, or what output it returns (e.g., list of errors or warnings). This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool and immediately conveys the core purpose without excessive detail.

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 description is incomplete for a validation tool. It does not explain what constitutes 'common issues,' what the return value or output looks like, or whether the operation has side effects on the file system. Since there are no annotations or output schema, the description should provide this context but fails to do so.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, including a clear description for 'path' (path to .gd file relative to project root). The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('validate') and resource ('GDScript'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_shader and validate_project that target different resources. However, 'common issues' is vague and does not specify what type of validation is performed (e.g., syntax, style, or static analysis), preventing a top score.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that one should use this instead of editor_run_gdscript or compile_shader, nor does it exclude any scenarios. The only implied usage is the generic 'validate GDScript,' which is evident from the name itself.

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