automations_get_script_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses return behavior ('Returns None if not found') and return type (a dict). It does not explicitly state read-only or idempotent nature, though the name suggests it. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds input format and return behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential action.

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 simple with one parameter and an output schema available (not shown). The description covers the main points. It might optionally mention that the config is YAML-based, but with the output schema providing structure, the description suffices.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter script_id. The description adds significant value by explaining accepted formats ('bare id or "script.<id>"'), which goes beyond just the type 'string'. This helps the agent construct valid inputs.

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 a script's YAML config as a dict', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like automations_get_automation_config by focusing on scripts. The input format and return type are specified.

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 input format guidance ('Accepts bare id or "script.<id>"'), which helps when calling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., automations_get_script_trace or automations_get_automation_config), leaving the context implied.

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