scry_script

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states that scripts have 'read-write DB access' and 'return structured JSON', which are critical behavioral traits. No contradictions or omissions beyond what is reasonable for a script runner.

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 extremely concise—three short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose, then lists actions with bullet-style clarity. Every sentence is informative and necessary.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, actions, parameters, DB access rights, and return format. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values further. No gaps remain for typical agent invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It specifies that action can be 'list' or 'run', script is required when action='run', and params are optional arbitrary inputs. This fully explains the parameters beyond the schema's bare types.

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 the verb ('Run validation or transformation scripts') and resource ('with DB access'). It distinguishes between two actions (list and run), which differentiates it from sibling tools that handle other responsibilities like raw SQL or data checks.

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 clear guidance on when to use 'list' vs 'run' and notes constraints (script required for run). However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or reference sibling tools as alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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