script

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

The description adds key behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it prepends an import, optionally writes to a file, and returns different objects based on the parameter. The file write is a side effect, but it's clearly disclosed and doesn't contradict the annotation (which likely refers to internal state).

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds key details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 main behavior, parameter effect, and return types. It could mention the case of no executed code blocks, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the parameter 'save_to'—its effect on behavior and return value—adding semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 tool returns a single Python script from executed code blocks, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'execute' or 'export' by focusing on assembling code, not running or saving files generically.

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?

It explicitly mentions the tool is 'useful for exporting a reproducible script after an interactive session,' providing clear guidance on when to use. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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