acs_get_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'view content' with no mention of return format, error behavior, side effects, or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool that could involve network calls or device access.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the core purpose, though it could benefit from noting what the tool returns or whether it reads from a local store vs. device. Still, given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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% with the 'name' parameter described as a script file name (e.g., Bootstrap.lua). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by referencing 'specified script', but does not provide additional semantic details about the parameter.

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 '查看指定脚本的内容' uses a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (script content), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_scripts (list all), create_script, delete_script, and run_script. It precisely states the action and target.

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: use this tool when you need to view a specific script's content. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear from the tool name and sibling list. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a 5.

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