Get OmniStudio OmniScript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by stating that the retrieved configuration includes elements, activation status, and LWC settings, giving behavioral insight into what the tool returns. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieves', and every word contributes to understanding the tool. There is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description adequately lists the key content of the retrieval (elements, activation status, LWC settings) and states the identifying parameters. It does not detail the return format or error behavior, but for a simple read-only operation with strong annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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 already provides descriptions for type and subType, and language has a default. The description enhances this by clarifying that the three parameters together identify the OmniScript, which adds semantic meaning about the composite key relationship beyond the individual field descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieves' and names the resource 'configuration of an OmniScript' with a clear scope (elements, activation status, LWC settings). It also identifies the composite key (Type + SubType + Language), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from create/update/activate siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to retrieve an OmniScript's configuration) and specifies the required identifiers. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as contrasting with sf_get_flexcard or sf_get_integration_procedure, so it misses the full 'alternatives' level.

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