screenslick_generate_script

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'write or improve' without clarifying side effects, requirements (e.g., existing project), or limitations. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or what happens after generation.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information or use formatting to aid readability. The brevity comes at the expense of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, one nested object with 5 fields) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the 'timed narration plan' is used, or how it relates to other tools in the list.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. 'brief' is a nested object with fields (videoType, goal, audience, tone, notes) that are completely unexplained, and 'mode' is an enum without clarification of its values.

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 ask ScreenSlick's script assistant to write or improve a timed narration plan. It uses a specific verb ('write or improve') and resource ('timed narration plan'), distinguishing it from siblings like generate_transcript or generate_voiceover.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain the difference between the 'script' and 'improve' modes, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for invoking the tool.

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