script_getscriptsbyevents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return structure (event ID to script mapping), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about auth requirements, result size, pagination, or mixed-content handling - notably silent on the untrusted-data wrapping that the raw_json parameter warns about, though that is covered in the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by return shape and a use case; every sentence carries information. Slight redundancy between the first and second sentences (both describe what is fetched), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

With an output schema present, the return mapping need not be spelled out, yet the description does so helpfully, and annotations plus a detailed schema cover the remaining surface. The main gap is the absence of any sibling routing (script_get, script_getscriptsbyhosts), which an agent selecting among many *_get tools would benefit from.

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% and all three parameters (server, eventids, raw_json) carry full descriptions in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only implies the eventids input via the phrase 'for the given events' and adds no syntax or batching semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get scripts available for the given events') and even clarifies the return shape (a mapping of event IDs to scripts executable in each event's context). It implicitly separates itself from the 'by hosts' sibling via the event domain, but never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 closing sentence gives one concrete use case ('building dynamic script menus in event detail views'), which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no when-not guidance and no reference to the closely related script_get or script_getscriptsbyhosts tools, so an agent must infer the boundaries itself.

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