validate_shader

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that validation checks shader_type, braces, and declarations, but does not mention side effects, return behavior, or failure modes. Since 'validate' typically implies read-only, this is somewhat transparent but lacks explicit confirmation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word 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 is simple with one parameter, but the description does not explain output on success/failure or whether the file is modified. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the validation returns, but it remains adequately scoped for a straightforward validation tool.

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 for the single 'path' parameter is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond the schema's 'relative to project root' description.

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 tool validates .gdshader files for syntax issues, naming specific elements (shader_type, braces, declarations). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like read_shader, write_shader, and compile_shader.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compile_shader or validate_script. There are no usage contexts, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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