scripts_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the result is a ZIP file containing YAML, requests a POST endpoint, and states the required admin permission. It omits error behavior or what happens when no script matches, but for a read-only fetch, this is reasonable coverage.

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 well-organized with a short intro, permission note, endpoint reference, and example. It is not excessively verbose, and each section contributes useful information. The example is slightly long but valuable despite the typo, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one parameter, no output schema, no annotations—the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how to filter, and the required permission. It lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools and error handling, but those are not critical for a straightforward retrieval operation.

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 description adds an example request body and states that filters can be based on name or ID, which helps interpret the schema. However, the example uses 'filters' while the schema defines 'filter', creating a mismatch that could mislead an agent. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only partially does—the typo is a notable flaw.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'script', and clarifies the retrieval mechanism ('by filtering based on its name or ID') along with the output format ('YAML is returned in a ZIP file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scripts_get_script_metadata and scripts_get_script_code.

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 provides clear context for use: you need to know the script's name or ID and must have Instance Administrator permissions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but it gives sufficient guidance for selecting this tool over generic getters.

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