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 states basic behavior (get source code) but omits details on truncation via maxLength, error cases (invalid scriptId), or return format. Schema covers maxLength but description doesn't reiterate its behavior.

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?

Two sentences: first defines function clearly, second adds context. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description lacks information about return format, error handling, and the optional pageId defaulting to 'main'. Given no output schema, description should provide more context to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context on how to obtain scriptId ('from list_scripts') but does not enhance understanding of sessionId, pageId, or maxLength beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'source code of a script', specifying the identifier 'by scriptId (from list_scripts)' and a use case 'static analysis of app.asar bundles'. This distinguishes it from siblings like evaluate_in_main which execute code dynamically.

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 for static analysis, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like evaluate_in_main for dynamic execution. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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