trmm_get_script

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the response includes full source code, and the tool is the intended pre-flight check before executing an unfamiliar script. It does not detail response structure or pagination, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The first states what the tool returns, and the second gives actionable usage context. There is no padding or repetition of schema data.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers the purpose, the key return content, and the right moment to use it. It omits details like where to obtain a script_id or the exact response shape, but those are not critical given the simple interface and the existing hint annotations.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the script_id parameter. It does not: it only says 'one script' without clarifying where the ID comes from, how it maps to a script, or any constraints. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description adds little beyond the schema's own 'Script Id' title.

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 a clear verb-resource structure: 'full detail for one script' tells the agent this is a single-item retrieval operation, not a list. 'Including its source code' makes the scope concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools like trmm_list_scripts or trmm_get_agent.

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 second sentence provides a strong usage cue: 'Read this before running an unfamiliar script on a machine.' This explains when the tool is valuable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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