keystone_new_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that new scripts are chmod +x, and that force=True refreshes an existing script. However, it doesn't explicitly describe error behavior when the script exists without force, or confirm what happens with a null body. Still, the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides useful information. It uses four sentences to convey purpose, usage, alternatives, and key behaviors without any filler.

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's moderate complexity (3 params, no annotations), the description covers the main use case, refresh flow, permission behavior, and explicit alternative. The output schema handles return values, so the description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'body' is the script body, 'name' appears in the file path, and 'force' is needed to refresh. However, it doesn't detail the default null body behavior or the exact outcome when force is false and the file exists, leaving some ambiguity.

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 scaffolds a shell script under a specific path, with a specific verb 'scaffold' and a resource. It also distinguishes itself from keystone_new_sensor, which is the alternative for sensor scaffolding.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('drop a script body without a sensor wrapper, or to refresh an existing script') and when to prefer an alternative ('Most projects scaffold sensors via keystone_new_sensor'). It also mentions the force=True refresh path, giving usage context.

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