get_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses a key behavioral trait (code is filtered by default) which is useful, but does not mention response format, permissions, error conditions, or other side effects. The single behavioral note is helpful but the description could be richer.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by an important qualifying statement. No filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 simple single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers core purpose and the key exception (code filtering) while pointing to the sibling for code. It lacks a bit of detail on what 'metadata' includes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool complexity.

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% with script_id described as 'Script ID'. The description only reaffirms 'by ID' without adding new details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 states 'Get script metadata by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_script_code by noting code is filtered by default. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'use get_script_code to retrieve code,' naming an alternative and indicating when to use it. This provides direct guidance on choosing between related tools.

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