Scratch action DSL reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' implies a non-mutating lookup, and the description specifies the content scope, but it does not disclose response format, potential size, or that no side effects occur. This is adequate but not rich for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The primary return value is front-loaded, and the timing hint ('Read this before writing scripts') 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?

For a simple reference tool with one optional enum parameter, this is almost complete: it states what is returned and when to use it. It lacks an explicit note about the response format, but the low complexity and schema coverage mitigate that gap.

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% (the 'topic' parameter is documented with enums and a default). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('full list of hat blocks, actions, expressions and built-in assets understood by add_script'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling action tools by positioning this as a reference for the DSL used by add_script.

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 instruction 'Read this before writing scripts' provides clear, explicit context for when to call this tool (before using add_script). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the reference vs. action distinction among siblings makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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