fiji_module_script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write capability is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavior: modules declaring record=false are excluded, and the output is a replayable script whose path doubles as its id. It does not clarify whether an existing file at 'path' is overwritten, which matters for a non-read-only tool.

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 content is packed into one long, parenthetical-laden run-on sentence that is difficult to parse on first read. The purpose is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded, and the nested aside about record=false interrupts the main clause.

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?

There is no output schema and minimal annotation detail, so the description carries the load; it does explain what the script contains (explicit inputs, replayable) and how to use the result afterward. It remains silent on error cases, overwrite semantics, and how this differs from fiji_module_run_script, leaving gaps for a pipeline-oriented tool.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single 'path' parameter already documented ('file to write the script to; empty returns it'). The description restates 'save it (path)' without adding format, overwrite, or default behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 conveys that the tool produces a Groovy script replaying this session's successful fiji_module_run calls, which is a specific resource+outcome. However, the opening is a grammatical fragment missing a verb ('The successful fiji_module_run calls ... as a Groovy script'), making the exact action hard to parse. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling fiji_module_run_script.

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?

'Once a result is right, save it (path) to keep the pipeline' gives a timing/condition for use, and it names downstream options (run it with fiji_module_run, or headless in a fresh Fiji). But it never states when to prefer this over fiji_module_run_script or what the alternative produces, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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