script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: assembly from executed blocks, automatic import prepending, and conditional file saving. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is non-destructive or if it modifies session state, but as a read-only export, the description is largely transparent.

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 only four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or padding.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it does so concisely. It covers both execution paths (with/without save_to) and includes relevant context about import handling and session scope.

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 the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the one parameter 'save_to': if given, writes script to path and returns different structure; otherwise returns {script, blocks}. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type and default.

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 ('Return') and resource ('a single Python script assembled from all successfully executed code blocks'). It specifies additional behaviors like prepending import and optional saving. Sibling tools include execute, reset, and save_snapshot, but none perform this assembly function, so it distinguishes effectively.

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 says 'useful for exporting a reproducible script after an interactive session,' which provides a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly with alternatives like save_snapshot or execute, leaving some ambiguity.

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