get_script_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe, side-effect-free read, so the description's main contribution is the field inventory. It does not disclose whether the values reflect saved or in-memory state, latency, or whether it is cheap enough to poll, which for a metadata probe would be genuinely useful.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the field list. Nothing is padded and nothing extraneous is present.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so explicitly. Only the absence of guidance against overlapping siblings like scene_digest leaves a small gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on the return contents, which is the right allocation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current script metadata') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent metadata-flavored siblings such as read_comp or scene_digest.

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 indication of when to call this versus read_comp, scene_digest, or read_node_detail. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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