scripts_get_script_code

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It provides the endpoint, license requirements, and an example request body, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how errors are handled. The read-only nature is only implied by 'Get'.

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-structured: it starts with the purpose, then includes license and endpoint details, followed by an example. Though the example is somewhat redundant with the schema, it is useful for clarity and does not bloat the description excessively.

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 single-parameter get operation, the description covers the purpose, license, and endpoint. However, it omits explicit usage alternatives, output format, and potential error responses. Given the lack of an output schema, these would be beneficial but are not critical for this simple tool.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter (script_uid) with a description, and the example JSON in the description matches the schema exactly. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond reinforcement of the structure.

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 states the tool retrieves the code of a specific script from the script library. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scripts_get_script_metadata (metadata) and scripts_get_scripts (list). The title also reinforces the purpose.

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 implies usage for fetching a script's source code and lists required licenses, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance partially implicit.

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