scripts_get_script_execution_results_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds practical details like required license, HTTP method, and an example request body. However, it does not disclose side effects, response format, or any error/edge-case behavior, which is a gap for a read operation without annotation support.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The opening 'Get Script Execution Result Files' is a mild redundancy, but the remainder is concise and well-organized. The example body and license info are useful, and no wasted sentences are present.

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 tool with no output schema and a nested request object, the description adequately explains how to construct the request but omits any reference to the response format or how the retrieved files are returned. This is a notable completeness gap, though the request-side context is well covered.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including action_id and endpoint_id. The tool description's example body reiterates the schema structure but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what is already documented in the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves files from a specific endpoint during script execution, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from the sibling tool scripts_get_script_execution_results by its focus on 'files' rather than results, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast itself.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The context is implied by 'during a script execution,' but there is no exclusions or differentiation from similar script-related tools like scripts_get_script_execution_results or actions_file_retrieval_details.

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