Skrypt wdrozeniowy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Pobiera' is consistent with those hints. It adds only the detail that the script contains deploy commands; no additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or return format are disclosed.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the action. The phrasing 'skryptu wdrozeniowego site' is slightly awkward, but it remains compact and readable.

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 read-only getter with only two parameters, the description plus annotations and parameter schema cover the essential calling context. No output schema exists, but the tool's purpose implies the returned content is the script text, so nothing critical is missing.

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% and both parameters have meaningful descriptions: site is a domain or site ID, and org defaults to server config. The tool description does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without compensating further.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Pobiera tresc skryptu wdrozeniowego' (gets the content of the deployment script) and clarifies the script is 'komendy uruchamiane przy kazdym deployu'. It makes the tool's object clear, but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like forge_update_deployment_script or forge_get_deployment_log.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The reader can infer it is for inspecting the commands run on deploy, but the description provides no exclusions or comparison with related operations, so an agent is left to guess when to choose this over get_deployment_log or deployment_status.

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