yc_inspect_scripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the origin allowlist ('Only YC and bookface-static origins are allowed') and warning that excerpts are untrusted data, which is real prompt-injection guidance not present in any structured field. It stops short of mentioning throttling, truncation, or what happens when no scripts match.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each carries distinct information: modes, origin restriction, and untrusted-data warning. No filler, though the phrasing 'referenced by ... HTML (direct HTTP)' is slightly compressed in a way that takes a beat to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is rightly omitted, and the description covers the mode split, origin restriction, and data-trust caveat. What remains missing for correct invocation is term-matching semantics and any indication of result volume or truncation behavior under the maxScripts/maxHitsPerTerm caps.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry meaning, and it only partially does: 'terms' is implied by 'Search' but matching semantics (literal vs. regex, case sensitivity, AND/OR across multiple terms) are never stated. The tuning parameters maxScripts and maxHitsPerTerm go entirely unexplained in both schema and description, though their names and 1-30/1-5 bounds make them largely self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search JavaScript referenced by YC application HTML') and distinguishes the two operating modes: direct HTTP on HTML vs. scripts loaded in the selected browser tab. The scope is unambiguous, though it does not name a sibling to contrast with, which is defensible given the sibling list contains schema/query tools rather than another script-inspection tool.

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 each mode applies ('direct HTTP' vs. 'loaded in the selected tab'), which is useful context, but it never states an explicit when-to-use rule, prerequisites, or when not to call it in favor of another tool. The agent must infer mode selection from the wording alone.

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