get_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' script code, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention error behavior when the target is ambiguous, the need for 'cell:' prefix, or what the response format is. The schema covers the cellName requirement, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource 'script code.' Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and a clear schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose but omits context around ambiguous names and error handling, which are partially covered by the schema. Since there is no output schema, a bit more explanation of return values would improve completeness, but it is not severely lacking.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, mentioning only 'object or cell' without explaining the target format or the cellName disambiguation logic. The schema already provides detailed parameter semantics.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Get the script code for an object or cell in the current project.' It clearly indicates the tool returns script code, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_object or search_scripts, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with read_project_scripts.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_scripts or read_project_scripts. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The optional cellName parameter hints at a disambiguation use case, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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