scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return formats for each action and the save action's side effect (writing to local file). However, it does not detail file overwrite behavior or potential permissions needed.

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 well-structured with a title, version note, replacement info, clear args list, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Output schema exists, but description still provides return info. However, it lacks error handling details and there is a slight mismatch: schema makes 'url' optional but description implies it's required for get/save. Adequate but incomplete for edge cases.

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 0%, so description compensates well. It explains the 'action' parameter with its three string values, the 'url' format including inline scripts, and 'save_path' requirement. Adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 it's for 'Script inspection' and unifies three previous tools. It specifies three actions (list, get, save) with distinct purposes, and is distinguishable from sibling tools focused on browser automation.

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 explains when to use each action (list, get, save) and their requirements. It mentions replacing previous tools, providing good context, but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives among siblings.

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