script.sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It doesn't say whether the tool is read-only, whether it inserts content into the editor or merely returns text, or what the sample demonstrates (scripting API? syntax template?). "Return" hints at a read, but nothing is stated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is tersely efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

Complexity is low (no parameters, no nested objects), which keeps the bar modest. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least characterize the returned script — its language, what it demonstrates, or whether it is a template to copy — and it does not.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The schema is trivially complete and closed (additionalProperties: false).

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 states a specific verb ("Return") and resource ("a sample script") plus its intended consumer (the script editor), so the agent knows this fetches an example script rather than executing one. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling script.run, so the reader must infer the distinction.

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 rather than script.run, nor on any prerequisites or follow-up steps. The phrase "for the script editor" implies a usage context but never states it as a rule.

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