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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the response includes commands, which is useful beyond the structured fields. However, it does not describe the full return shape or behavior for invalid versions, leaving some ambiguity that annotations do not fully cover.

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 with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the action, the target resource, the included content, and the intended use case.

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 covers the basic what and why, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, it does not fully describe the return value beyond 'commands,' and it omits guidance that valid version numbers might come from list_script_revisions. This leaves moderate gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly without additional context.

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%, with only 'version' described. The tool description does not compensate by explaining 'projectId' or 'scriptId' beyond their self-evident names, and it does not clarify required formats or relationships between the parameters. This is a significant gap given the low 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific past revision of a script.' It also adds 'including its commands,' which distinguishes it from list_script_revisions and get_script by clarifying that it returns executable content, not just metadata.

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?

'So you can inspect or diff it' provides a clear use case for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions like get_script or restore_script_revision, but the intended context is evident from the wording.

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