script_module_help

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

With no annotations and no return/error/side-effect description, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only mentions 'help() output' without specifying format, failure modes, or whether any state changes occur.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted wordsasi. However, it is so terse that it misses meaningful context for the single parameter and return behavior.

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?

No annotations or output schema exist, and the description doesn't explain what a valid name looks like, what the help output contains, or how it differs from related script_* tools. An agent has just enough to guess, but not enough to call it confidently.

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 already provides a string parameter named 'name'; the description's 'Name to look up' adds no new information. There is no guidance on the expected format, namespace, or valid values for the name.

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 phrase 'help() output for a td name' conveys the general function, but it never defines what a 'td name' is or what form the help output takes. It distinguishes itself from class-oriented siblings only by implying module-level help, without stating it.

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 given on when to use this tool versus related tools like script_class_list or script_class_detail, nor what valid input names look like. An agent gets no help choosing or preparing an argument.

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