get_script_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not explain what 'live' vs 'headless' mode means for behavior, whether a script must already be open, or what happens when script is null. It essentially restates return fields instead of disclosing behavior.

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?

It is short with no padding, but it is an unpunctuated fragment with no lead sentence stating the action, so it is not properly front-loaded. The brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being genuinely efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so the enumerated return fields largely duplicate structured data, and the description leaves the actual gaps (parameter meaning, mode behavior, errors) unaddressed. For a tool with an enum parameter and no schema descriptions, this is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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?

There are 2 parameters (mode with an auto/live/headless enum, and script) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It never mentions either parameter, leaving the meaning of the mode enum and the script identifier entirely unexplained. This is a clear compensation failure given the low coverage.

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 is a noun fragment listing the data returned (frame range, fps, format, colour management, node counts, Read/Write node names) rather than a verb+resource statement, but combined with the name get_script_info an agent can infer it retrieves metadata about a script. It does implicitly separate it from get_app_info (script-level, not application-level), but does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like list_nodes or get_node.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g. get_app_info for host info, list_nodes for node listing). No exclusions, no prerequisites, and nothing about what state the script must be in. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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