scripts_get_script_execution_results

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions license requirements, the API endpoint, and an example request body, but does not disclose response format, error behavior, potential side effects, or whether it is read-only beyond the verb 'retrieve'. The description adds little beyond what the name implies.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured: a clear title, a brief explanatory sentence, license info, the endpoint, and an example. There is minor redundancy between 'Get Script Execution Results' and 'Retrieve the results...', but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains, but it does not. It does not clarify the relationship with sibling tools like get_script_execution_status or get_script_execution_results_files. The example covers only the request side, leaving the agent uncertain about the returned data.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a detailed description of 'action_id' and where to find it. The description provides an example request body that clarifies structure. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, the baseline is 3, and the example adds marginal value.

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 that this tool retrieves the results of a script execution action, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scripts_get_script_execution_status or scripts_get_script_execution_results_files, but the term 'results' distinguishes it enough for basic understanding.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after running a script, nor does it explain differences from status or file retrieval tools. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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