startup_script_get_startup_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one useful behavior: 'Smart identifier resolution' accepts either a script name or UUID. It also signals read-only intent via 'Get details,' but it does not address not-found behavior, errors, or other side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by the resolution behavior and argument/return summary. There is slight redundancy between 'Get details' and 'Returns: Startup script details,' but overall every line earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation detail: the identifier can be a name or UUID. It does not explain how to discover the identifier or what happens on ambiguous or missing matches, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 input schema only specifies a string, so the description adds meaningful semantics by stating that script_identifier is 'the startup script name or ID' and that resolution supports names or UUIDs. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it lacks examples or explicit format constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific startup script.' The word 'specific' distinguishes it from list and search siblings, and 'details' separates it from content-focused tools. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: call this when you need details of a single startup script and have its name or UUID. There is no direct guidance about when to choose this over startup_script_list_startup_scripts or startup_script_search_startup_scripts, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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