ruyi_save_script_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the extension behavior (JSON results use .json, others use .js), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, file system permissions, or side effects like creating directories. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 two short sentences, highly concise and front-loaded. The main action is stated first, followed by a specific formatting rule. No superfluous words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers its core function and output naming. However, it leaves pageIdx unexplained and does not provide context about when to use it (e.g., what 'script' refers to, how pageIdx relates to scripts). Given the sibling tools, a brief usage note would improve completeness, but the description is acceptable for a basic save 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?

Schema coverage is 67% (url and filePath have descriptions), but the description itself adds no parameter-specific details. The pageIdx parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not elaborate on how url or filePath are used beyond their schema descriptions. The extension rule is about output, not parameter semantics.

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 action ('保存' - save), the resource ('脚本完整源码' - complete script source), and the destination ('本地文件' - local file). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_script_source or list_scripts by focusing on the save-to-file behavior. The addition of extension rules (JSON → .json, others → .js) further specifies the output format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_script_source, list_scripts). There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as needing a page context or ensuring the script exists. The description is purely functional without context about scenarios or constraints.

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