Get Custom JavaScript from Project

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the source (assets.js section) and that it retrieves files, which is consistent and provides extra detail beyond annotations.

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 concise with five sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then detailing arguments and return value. No unnecessary words.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, its arguments, and its return value. Annotations provide safety context, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description elaborates by noting file_name is optional and that omitting it returns all JS files, adding value beyond the schema.

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 name, title, and description clearly state the tool extracts all custom JS files and their content from a .bsdesign file. It distinguishes from siblings like bs_generate_custom_js, which generates JS rather than extracts.

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 usage for retrieving custom JS from a .bsdesign file, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bs_generate_custom_js or when not to use it.

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