script-report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Report' and lists content categories, without disclosing whether the tool is strictly read-only, what output format to expect, or whether it may be expensive or limited.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Each listed item adds concrete scope information, making it an efficient representation of the tool.

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 zero-parameter report tool, the description provides the primary content areas but omits return format, read-only guarantees, or any behavioral caveats. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this is a minimum-viable description rather than a fully complete one.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and 100% vacuous schema coverage, so parameter-level explanation is not needed. The description adds scope detail about the reported areas, which is appropriate but not a substitute for parameter documentation.

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 uses the verb 'Report' with explicit target resources ('script-space operators, preferences, paths, and editor areas'), making the action and scope clear. It does not fully define 'script-space' or explicitly contrast with narrower sibling tools like script-paths, so it falls just short of a top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as script-paths, script-run_file, or other domain reports. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.

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