get_script_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that fetching is via the page (BiDi limitation), may be blocked by CORS, and results are cached. This provides useful behavioral context, though it could add more detail on error handling or cache duration.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no filler, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers constraints (CORS, caching) but lacks details on return format (script source code as string?), error scenarios, or cache behavior. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 description identifies the 'url' parameter by stating 'by URL', but adds little beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate more; it could specify URL format or that it must be a full page script URL.

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 tool gets the source of a script by URL using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_scripts (lists scripts) and search_in_scripts (searches within scripts). The addition of 'by URL' and the constraints (BiDi, CORS) further clarify the scope.

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 implies usage when needing a script's source by URL, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_scripts or search_in_scripts. It mentions potential CORS issues but lacks when/not guidance.

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