get_script_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it doesn't execute or pause the page, and discloses that scriptId is invalid after reload/navigation. This provides critical behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and core guidance. It is slightly verbose but each sentence serves a distinct instructional purpose. Could be tightened, but remains efficient for the complexity.

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?

Despite 6 parameters and many sibling tools, the description covers selection strategies (URL vs scriptId), parameter combinations (line ranges vs offset/length), edge cases (scriptId invalidation, default length), and explicit alternatives (save_script_source, set_breakpoint_on_text). The output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description.

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%, so the schema documents all 6 parameters. However, the description adds meaningful usage guidance: 'preferred stable selector' for url, 'ignored unless offset is provided' for length, 'for minified single-line code' for offset, 'inclusive 1-based' for lines, and invalidation conditions for scriptId. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('small source region'), and immediately clarifies scope ('around a search match, paused location, or known statement') and what it does not do ('without executing or pausing the page'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like save_script_source and set_breakpoint_on_text.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use URL vs scriptId ('prefer URL for external scripts'), when to use line ranges vs offset/length ('normal source' vs 'minified single-line bundles'), and provides alternatives for whole/minified/WASM source ('use save_script_source') and for runtime values ('call set_breakpoint_on_text'). Also explains when scriptId becomes invalid.

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