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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that output is decompiled source and that large scripts benefit from line-range requests, but it does not describe failure modes, partial-return behavior, or whether getter code has side effects beyond what the schema already states.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and one important usage tactic, though it could have included sibling differentiation without becoming verbose.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It implies one of three lookup modes is needed but never states that at least one must be provided, and it does not explain return format or error behavior beyond what the schema says.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level mapping of the three lookup mechanisms, but most parameter meaning is already fully documented in the input schema.

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 decompiled source for a Roblox script'. It also names the three lookup modes (path, script proxy, getter code), making it clear what the tool does and how it differs from search-oriented siblings like script-grep.

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 gives clear practical guidance: use startLine/endLine ranges when the script is large. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as script-grep or semantic-search-scripts, but the usage context is clear.

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