get_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool retrieves source code, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose error conditions, permission requirements, or any side effects. The behavior is basic and not misleading, but additional details would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: two focused sentences for purpose and two brief parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (which presumably describes the return format), the description does not need to elaborate on return values. It covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and hints at a prerequisite (list_scripts). For a simple retrieval tool, this is nearly complete; a mention of the output being source code would be a minor improvement.

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, but the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: project_path is described as a path to an Ignition project directory or .zip export, and script_path is described as a script resource path from list_scripts output. This adds value beyond the schema, though examples or format hints would elevate it further.

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 ('Get the source code') and the resource ('an Ignition project script'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scripts (which lists scripts) and execute_script (which runs them). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies that script_path should come from list_scripts output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any conditions or prerequisites beyond the parameter descriptions.

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