get_worker_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states 'Get metadata,' which weakly implies a read operation. It provides no detail on what kind of metadata is returned, permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so the agent has little to go on beyond the tool name.

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?

A single clean sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter get tool, though it is on the terse side and could add a few words of differentiation value without bloating.

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?

Adequate for a simple get-by-script tool whose parameters are fully documented by the schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the nature of the returned metadata, usage context versus list_workers, and any error or permission behavior unexplained — gaps that matter less for a read tool but are still present.

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 both account_id and script_name are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is strictly required at this coverage level, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a resource ('metadata for a specific Worker script'), and a single-item scope via 'specific', which distinguishes it from the sibling list_workers. However, 'metadata' is somewhat vague about what exactly is returned, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from get_worker_build.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'specific' weakly implies it should be used when a particular script_name is known rather than listing all workers, but no alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving the agent to infer the selection context.

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