capture_published_script_baseline

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the encoding (UTF-8), that the result includes organization evidence and a content hash, and that no platform signature or lock is provided — a meaningful trust caveat. It still omits whether anything is persisted, size limits, and failure behavior, so it is good but not rich.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core read operation and the trust caveat are both front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With a readOnly annotation, no output schema, and a simple flat schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, and even sketches the return contents. The unexplained 'label' parameter and the absence of any guidance on what the baseline is later used for keep it from being fully complete.

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 25% — only environment_profile is documented. The description partially compensates by explaining that the resource is read 'from a named profile', covering profile indirectly, and implying resource_id identifies the published script. The required 'label' parameter (max 200 chars) is never explained in either the schema or the description, which is the main gap.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair: read a published UTF-8 JavaScript web resource, plus what is captured (organization evidence, content hash). That distinguishes it from capture_published_form_baseline by artifact type, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus verify_form_baseline, capture_form_baseline, or the inspect_* tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., what a 'published' resource means or whether a prior publish is required). The closing caveat about missing signature/lock hints at a trust limitation but is not usage guidance.

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