script_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes that detach is undoable, reveals what read returns (source, line count, file size), and explains the canonical call shape and compatibility alias. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the provided details are useful and non-contradictory.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a bulleted list of ops, and a code block for call shape. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the front-loaded purpose statement makes the tool's intent immediately clear.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers what is needed: operation semantics, resource path format, canonical invocation, and compatibility alias. It is complete for a dispatch-style tool with three ops, and the output schema likely handles return-value documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the op enum, the params object, and session_id placement, and shows path as a parameter for each operation through signatures like read(path). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about required parameter fields per op.

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 identifies the tool as managing .gd scripts via three specific operations (read, detach, find_symbols), using specific verbs and resources. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like script_create, script_patch, and script_attach by focusing on read/detach/outline rather than creation or modification.

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 provides clear context on when to use the resource form (prefer for active-session reads) and lists the available operations with their purpose. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the op-level descriptions and the resource form guidance give adequate usage direction for most cases.

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