get_script_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only retrieval action ('Get') and describes the output content (beat-by-beat timings and rules). However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, require permissions, or handle invalid formats. The word 'Get' implies safety but lacks detail.

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?

The description is two sentences with no extraneous words. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful detail about the output. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers the purpose, the input domain, and what the output will contain (structure with timings and rules). No further context is needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides the format enum, but the description adds meaning by explaining that the parameter selects a format's specific script structure and that each format includes 'rules that keep the format working.' It also reiterates the valid format values in prose, reinforcing the parameter's purpose and scope.

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 tool's purpose: to retrieve the beat-by-beat script structure with timings for a specific format. It explicitly lists all five valid formats, making the resource and scope clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hook_mechanics or get_retention_mechanics, which focus on specific elements.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where you would choose this over audit_script or get_full_pack, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The tool's use case is only implied by its name and description.

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