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 behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains outcomes: 'Returns detailed error messages with line/column numbers, or confirms valid syntax with a summary of detected events and actions.' This goes beyond the simple verb 'validate' by detailing what happens on success and failure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, but the nature of validation implies it, and the return behavior covers the key aspects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the core function; the second explains the two possible outcomes, including error details. No wasted words or repetition.

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 only one parameter, and the description fully covers its purpose and behavior. There is no output schema, but the description explains what will be returned in both success and error cases. It also specifies the use of the 'full parser', which is important context for users concerned about validation thoroughness. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter ('code') with a clear description, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but it does not need to because the schema is sufficient. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for 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 tool's purpose: 'Validate Purl DSL script syntax using the full parser.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_script or update_script, which are for retrieval or modification. The addition of 'full parser' and return behavior further clarifies its distinct role.

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 makes the usage context obvious: it is for validating Purl DSL script syntax. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the uniqueness of the task (no other sibling tool validates scripts) makes the intended use clear. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided, but the context is unambiguous.

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