Get script config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the shape of the returned configuration, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about auth needs, failure modes, or behavior for unknown script ids beyond what the schema's instance_id text already conveys.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation trailing. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return shape (alias, sequence, fields, mode), which is adequate for a read-only getter. The field list is slightly coarse but sufficient for an agent to decide to call it.

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 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the 'script.raise_heat' id form and the instance_id refusal semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get a script's full configuration') and enumerates what the config contains (alias, sequence, fields, mode), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also differentiates itself from the listing path by naming ha_list_entities as the sibling to use for enumeration.

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?

It explicitly routes the enumeration case to ha_list_entities domain='script', giving one clear when-to-use alternative with a condition. It does not address the get-vs-other-getters case (e.g. ha_get_automation, ha_get_config), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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