get_script_include

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main added value is the requirement of SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true. It does not elaborate on response format, error behavior, or any side effects, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but minimal.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and quickly adds the key prerequisite. No wasted words; all information is essential and clearly structured.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description covers the purpose and the critical prerequisite. The output (full script body) is implied, and the schema documents the parameter. It is nearly complete, though it could mention handling of invalid IDs or exact return format, but this is not essential for a tool of this simplicity.

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 100%, with the parameter 'sys_id_or_name' described as 'Script include sys_id or api_name'. The tool description adds no additional meaning or nuance about the parameter, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Get), the resource (script include), and the specific outcome (full script body). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_script_includes and create_script_include by emphasizing the retrieval of the complete script source.

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 provides a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) which gives context for when the tool can be used, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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