scripts

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by detailing destructive actions like 'replace entire file' and 'delete'. It adds context about template generation for create and parameter dependencies, providing behavioral clarity beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, using bullet points and clear groupings. Every sentence serves a purpose—defining actions, parameters, and providing an example—without superfluous content.

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 (7 parameters, 6 actions), the description comprehensively covers all actions, their parameter requirements, and usage notes. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is fully adequate.

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 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters per action, indicating which are required/optional, and providing an example script path format. This enhances understanding of parameter usage beyond the schema's individual 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 'GDScript file CRUD' and enumerates specific actions (create, read, write, attach, list, delete) with parameter requirements. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., animation, audio) by focusing exclusively on GDScript file manipulation, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 structured action listings with required and optional parameters, giving clear context for when to use each action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings, though the domain specificity makes the usage implied.

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