Scripts Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context that the call requires no scope beyond any valid token plus the API version. It omits error behavior for an unknown ID, which keeps it off a 5.

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 lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler prose. The HTTP/version lines are boilerplate but cheap and each carries discrete information.

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 single-record read with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the definition gives everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it returns (a script association), the identifier, and the auth requirement. Only the behavior on a missing/invalid ID is left unstated.

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%, so id, fields and response_format are already documented in the schema. The description only maps {id} into the URL path and adds no meaning about the fields projection or format choice, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get a script association') and the underlying endpoint GET /scripts/{id}, which makes it clearly the single-object counterpart to scripts_list. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the get/list naming convention.

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?

Usage is implied only: fetch one script by ID when you already have the ID. There is no statement of when to prefer scripts_list, no prerequisite beyond the scope note, and no guidance on the not-found case.

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