scripts_get_script_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation without side effects, nor does it mention rate limits or what happens on invalid input. The only behavioral hint is the POST method and license requirement, which are not sufficient for full transparency.

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 and concise: a one-sentence purpose, license line, API endpoint, and an example. Each section is relevant and no unnecessary information is included. The title slightly overlaps with the first sentence, but the added detail ('full definitions', 'specific script') justifies the repetition.

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, one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the essential invocation details with a clear example. However, it lacks information about the return value (despite no output schema) and does not address potential errors or edge cases. This makes it minimally adequate but not fully complete for autonomous usage.

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 complete documentation of the single parameter (request_data with script_uid). The description adds a concrete example request body, which helps agents understand the exact expected structure. This goes beyond the schema's existing coverage, though it does not introduce new parameter-level details.

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 'Get the full definitions of a specific script in the scripts library,' specifying a distinct verb (Get) and resource (script metadata/definitions) with a specific scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scripts_get_script_code or scripts_run_script, which target different aspects.

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 includes license prerequisites and an API endpoint, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scripts_get_scripts or scripts_get_script_code. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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