script_library_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value: 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, it clarifies the storage scope, and it warns that launch receipts are not proof of page injection — a non-obvious interpretive caveat. However, it says nothing about return format, freshness, or error behavior for a status tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by two useful caveats. Nothing is padded, though the juxtaposition of the storage note and the injection note is slightly abrupt.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete about scope but does not define what 'selected build' or 'pending changes' mean or what the caller receives back. An agent can call it, but interpreting the result is left open.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter surface to clarify and adds no misleading detail.

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 states a specific verb (Read) and resource (the local CLI/MCP script library, selected build, and pending changes), which distinguishes it from siblings like script_change and script_preview. It also explicitly separates itself from Chrome extension storage, a helpful disambiguation. It falls short of a 5 because 'selected build' and 'pending changes' remain loosely defined concepts an agent must infer.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus siblings such as script_preview, script_import, or script_change. The note about being separate from Chrome extension storage clarifies the data source but does not route the agent between tools. Usage is only faintly implied by the 'status' nature of the tool.

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