get_script_includes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by noting that include_scripts defaults to false for token efficiency and that script bodies are redacted. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as an implicit performance consideration. No contradictions.

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: a clear purpose, background explanation, usage context, three concise examples, parameter descriptions, and return value specification. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, pagination, output schema) and numerous siblings, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, parameter details with defaults, return structure (count, total_count, has_more, etc.), and performance implications. It is complete and self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: name_filter is a case-insensitive LIKE match, active_only defaults to True, include_scripts is for reviewing logic with a token efficiency note, limit has a range 1-1000 with default 25, and offset is for pagination. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get script includes matching a name filter.' It explains what script includes are and distinguishes them from business rules, making the purpose unambiguous. Examples further clarify usage, and the sibling tools are different enough (e.g., get_business_rules) to avoid confusion.

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 description gives explicit context: 'Use this to find utility classes referenced by business rules, flows, or other scripts.' It provides examples illustrating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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