script_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a harmless query (nothing about mutation, permissions, or side effects) and does name the return contents, but it says nothing about cost, latency, or failure modes when no script is uploaded.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler, and the core information (stored script + running state) is front-loaded. Nothing would be gained by trimming it further.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it only sketches the shape (a script identity and a running flag) without stating the format or what happens when nothing is stored. Adequate for a zero-arg query but not fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics the description would need to clarify.

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 two facts the tool retrieves: which script is stored on the board and whether it is currently running. That is a specific resource (board script state), though it never names how it differs from the sibling board_status, which an agent may see as overlapping.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as board_status or run_script. The read-only intent is only implied by the interrogative phrasing.

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