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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. Beyond that, the description adds that it returns status and lines and that wait_seconds (up to 25) will wait for the script to be ready, which clarifies blocking behavior not captured by annotations.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core return information and waiting behavior. Every phrase contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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?

With annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the main return content (status and lines) and the wait_seconds behavior. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit definition for script_id, though the preview_script connection provides a usable clue.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains wait_seconds as a readiness wait capped at 25, but it does not explicitly define script_id beyond the contextual phrase 'from preview_script,' leaving the identifier parameter only indirectly documented.

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 identifies the resource as a script from preview_script and states that it returns status and lines. It distinguishes itself from the sibling preview_script by being the follow-up retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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 phrase 'from preview_script' implies this tool is used after preview_script to check results, and wait_seconds is described as waiting for readiness. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to poll, when to use wait_seconds versus calling again later, or when not to use this tool.

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