get_client_script

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the return content ('full details and script body') and the prerequisite, which is beyond the annotations. It could mention that the script body might be large, but overall it's good.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes the requirement in parentheses. No extraneous information; every part 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?

Given no output schema, the description says 'full details and script body', which is somewhat complete but not exhaustive. It could mention typical fields returned or that it returns a single object. Considering the tool's simplicity and the context, it's adequate but not highly informative.

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 coverage is 100% (sys_id is described as 'System ID of the client script'), so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic meaning to this parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it retrieves 'full details and script body' of a client script, with the verb 'Get' and specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_client_scripts' and 'update_client_scripts' by implying it returns full details including the script body. The prerequisite is also noted.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which provides context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like listing or updating scripts, though the purpose is clear from the name.

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