get_userscript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: "不依赖浏览器连接, 随时可调" (does not depend on browser connection, can be called anytime), indicating the tool is always available and performs a read-only retrieval. It also warns about the NAMESPACE caveat. This adds value beyond the name and purpose.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediate usage. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it returns and for what purpose; the second includes the necessary caveat and availability. No wasted words.

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 simple no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, why it's used, a key prerequisite, and the fact that it can be called anytime. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description provides no parameter details but correctly omits them since they don't exist. It instead mentions a user action (changing NAMESPACE) which is not a parameter, which is fine.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "返回 Tampermonkey 油猴脚本全文" (returns the full text of the Tampermonkey userscript). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_resources, list_obstacles, and get_all_cells by focusing on the script text rather than game state or resources.

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 states the intended use case: "供用户粘贴进扩展安装" (for users to paste into extension installation) and gives a prerequisite: the user must change the NAMESPACE. It does not explicitly exclude any contexts or mention alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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