get_script_api

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description focuses on lookup semantics: type lookups include inherited members, member lookups include signatures and docs. It also discloses the non-obvious `Instance` = `Domain` alias, which is not derivable elsewhere; only minor details like not-found behavior are absent.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what it looks up and followed immediately by the return-shape distinction. No filler; only the final alias sentence is slightly tacked on rather than integrated.

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?

With an output schema present and the `game` parameter fully documented in-schema, the description only needs to nail lookup semantics and it does. Faint gaps remain around error/empty-result behavior for unknown symbols.

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 coverage is 100%, so the 3 baseline applies, and the description earns a bump by explaining the consequence of each input form (type → full member set with inheritance; anything else → matched members with signature and docs) and by revealing the `Instance` alias that the schema does not mention.

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 ('Look up the CS2 cs_script (point_script) JavaScript API') and clarifies the two lookup modes. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_script_types and search_docs, but it never names those alternatives to reinforce the distinction.

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?

It explains what to pass (a type name vs. anything else) and what each form yields, which is implicit guidance on how to use it. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over search_docs, get_doc, or get_schema_class, so the agent must infer routing.

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