script_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it confirms the tool only reads and syntax-checks (no execution or mutation), enumerates the returned artifacts (source, scope, SHA-256, library revision), and adds a security directive to treat source as untrusted review material rather than instructions. It omits error/failure behavior and any permission or path-resolution requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, semicolon-joined sentences with zero filler. The core action and its outputs come first, and the safety caveat is placed last where it belongs.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields (full source, scope, SHA-256, library revision), so an agent understands the response shape. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete; only failure modes and large-file/truncation behavior are unaddressed.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'An explicitly chosen local userscript' clarifies that path points to a local userscript file rather than a remote/URL reference, but no format, extension, or resolution semantics are given beyond that.

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 pairs precise verbs ('Read and syntax-check') with a specific resource ('an explicitly chosen local userscript') and even enumerates the outputs, so an agent knows exactly what this does. It distinguishes itself functionally from the mutating siblings script_import and script_change by being a read/syntax-check operation, but it never names or explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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 'explicitly chosen local userscript' implies the caller must already have picked a path and that this is a pre-flight review step before import/change, but no when-to-use condition or alternative sibling (script_library_status, script_import) is stated. Usage is inferable from the sibling set, not spelled out.

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