magic_script_help

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'query usage' without detailing whether it's read-only, authentication needs, return format, or error cases. Minimal 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?

One sentence that directly states purpose and scope. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with relevance. Concise and effective.

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 simple help tool, the description is too brief. It does not specify what the output contains (e.g., text, code snippets, examples) or how errors are handled. Would benefit from more detail on return format.

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 100% with a good description of 'topic'. The tool description adds example modules (db/http/response/env) but mostly echoes the schema examples, providing little extra semantic value.

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 tool queries magic-script usage for specific modules (db/http/response/env, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools which manage APIs and groups, so agents can differentiate.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need help on magic-script topics. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given, but sibling context makes it clear it's not for resource management.

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