PyNet Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. While 'Installs' implies a write operation, the description lacks critical details: idempotency behavior (error if exists vs. overwrite), side effects, required permissions, or what the output schema contains.

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 single sentence is efficiently structured with zero redundancy. However, given the complete lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description is underspecified rather than optimally concise—critical information is missing entirely, not just compressed.

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 6 parameters, 4 required, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the tool is moderately complex but undocumented. While an output schema exists (reducing description burden for return values), the description fails to address the parameter semantics, prerequisites, or behavioral edge cases necessary for reliable 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 has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to compensate. It only implicitly maps 'ButtonsModule' to 'module_id' and 'ScriptButton' to the operation. It fails to explain 'pid' (likely process ID), distinguish between 'name' (display label?) and 'script_Path' (executable?), or clarify valid values for 'icon_name'.

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 uses specific verb 'Installs' and identifies the resource 'ScriptButton' and target 'ButtonsModule', clarifying the core operation. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling 'update_script_button'—both could involve 'installing' or configuring buttons, leaving ambiguity about whether this creates new vs. modifies existing.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'update_script_button' or 'delete_script_button'. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether the ButtonsModule must exist beforehand, or if the script_Path must be valid/accessible).

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