get_script_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly state that the script is not executed, does not mention error behavior for missing scripts, and gives no side-effect or safety context. This is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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 appropriately minimal: one clear purpose sentence plus a compact Args block. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential inputs and their provenance. The main missing piece is explicit side-effect or exclusion guidance, but an agent can successfully invoke the tool with the provided doc_id and name.

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% and the schema only provides generic titles ('Name', 'Doc Id'), so the description must compensate. It does by explaining doc_id as the ID from open_document and name as the script name to retrieve. This gives the agent enough semantic grounding, though format or source details for the name are not included.

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 and resource: getting the source code of a named script. This distinguishes it from siblings like run_script or run_macro, which execute rather than retrieve. The scope is clear enough that an agent knows what the tool does immediately.

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 Args section gives useful context by tying doc_id to an open document, which implies a prerequisite of opening the document first. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it, so the usage guidance is present but incomplete.

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