getscripthash — content hash of a script

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destroy, but the description adds real behavior: it is type-guarded and pcall-wrapped, returns { error } when getscripthash is missing or the call fails, and depends on an active client and resolved target. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry load (resolution mechanism, failure shape, prerequisites). It loses a little to duplication with the annotations ('idempotency=read-only' and 'Safety: read-only') and the trailing generic 'inspect tool-schema' boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ hash } or { error }), failure semantics, prerequisites, and the phase/cost profile — enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the call correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that the path is evaluated as `return <expression>` and that threadContext defaults to the server default duplicates what the schema already documents, adding little.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Compute the content hash of a script') and spells out the resolution mechanism (Luau expression via loadstring('return ' .. expr)), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like crypt-hash or get-function-hash.

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?

'Handy for detecting when a script's bytecode/source changes between two checks' gives a concrete use case, and the 'Requires: active-client, resolved-target' line states prerequisites. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not condition, so it is not a 5.

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