nexterm_get_script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds only the optional organization scoping behavior; it does not mention not-found behavior, permission requirements, or return characteristics.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though that brevity contributes to the gaps in parameter and usage guidance.

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 read-only getter with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero schema description coverage on two parameters and no return-shape information, it leaves meaningful gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining both parameters but only hints that organization_id provides an optional organization scope. It says nothing about script_id being a required positive integer identifier or what a null organization_id means.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one script'), making the single-item retrieval purpose clear and distinguishable from the many list/create/update/delete script siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternative list tool, but the singular scope is enough for an agent to 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?

The phrase 'optionally in an organization scope' hints at when the organization_id parameter applies, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus nexterm_list_scripts or nexterm_list_all_scripts, nor does it state prerequisites such as required permissions.

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