bunny_get_edge_script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by enumerating the specific response fields, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. Minor gaps like error behavior are not disclosed, but the bar is lower given the strong annotation 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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned content categories. There is zero filler or redundant restating of the tool name, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only get-by-ID operation with one required parameter and robust annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and return content. Since there is no output schema, it helpfully names the included detail categories, though it does not specify response structure or error cases, which are minor for this 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 only parameter 'id' is already fully documented in the schema with type, exclusivity, and description. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't—it only implies the ID is used for lookup. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('edge script details by ID'), and enumerates the exact content returned (configuration, linked pull zones, deployment status, integration type, release history). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bunny_list_edge_scripts (list vs. get-by-ID) and bunny_get_edge_script_code (code only vs. full details).

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 context of when to use this tool is implied: when you already have an edge script ID and need its full details. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as bunny_list_edge_scripts or bunny_get_edge_script_code, and no stated exclusion.

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