script_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, data freshness). It is not contradictory, but the description does not enhance what the annotations already provide.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second paragraph provides context about scripts, which is helpful but slightly redundant for a well-known domain. Overall, it is appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff.

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 that annotations cover safety, input schema is rich, and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context about the domain. It explains what scripts are, which aids interpretation. However, it lacks explicit mention of pagination or response structure, though schema partially covers these.

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 schema description coverage is 91%, with most parameters well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain typical usage of parameters like 'filter_params' or grouping of 'hostids' and 'groupids'.

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 'Get scripts from Zabbix.' with a specific verb and resource. It explains what scripts are in the second paragraph. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like script_execute or other 'get' tools, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use this tool specifically.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with related tools such as script_execute. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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