inspect_form_script_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what is returned, what happens if entry_id does not match the given kind, or whether handlers require event_name/attribute_name to be located.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its terseness is efficient but comes at the cost of the detail a six-parameter tool needs, so it is concise rather than exemplary.

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 six-parameter tool with 17% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not sufficient. The description should clarify the library-versus-handler modes and the conditional roles of event_name and attribute_name; those gaps are exactly where an agent is most likely to call it incorrectly.

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 description coverage is only 17% (just environment_profile), so the description must compensate and does not. None of formxml, kind, entry_id, event_name, or attribute_name is explained, and the crucial relationship between kind='handler' and the optional event_name/attribute_name fields is left entirely implicit.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('a unique script library or event handler entry from form XML'), including the source artifact. This is enough to separate it from siblings like inspect_form_node or inspect_form_row, though it never explicitly names the closest relative, prepare_form_script_entry_candidate.

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 the sibling prepare_form_script_entry_candidate or the other inspect_* tools. Nothing says whether 'kind' must match how the entry_id was produced, or when event_name/attribute_name are needed to disambiguate an entry.

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