info

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (description, validation report, usage stats, etc.), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential errors, or side effects. For a simple info tool, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the Args section is minimal yet informative. There is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema available, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's function and the parameter's meaning. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance or mention of alternative tools, which would make it fully complete. The output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values, but the lack of usage context slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that vending_code is "the script's vending code" and provides an example format ("S-7K2M"). This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema definition (just a string type) and helps the agent construct a correct call.

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's purpose: "Get full details about a script" and lists the specific types of details (description, validation report, usage stats, similar scripts, creator info). This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_scripts or list_agents, though the scope is evident.

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 implies when to use the tool (when full script details are needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer an alternative. It does not state exclusions or mention alternatives. The usage context is somewhat clear from the description itself but lacks explicit direction.

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