get_replay_scripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description usefully reinforces this by stating it does not run a build, confirming no execution side effects. It adds no information about failure behavior when the form is absent or not editable, nor about how the "loaded" scripts differ from the "main" one, so credit beyond the annotation is modest.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the scope statement comes first and the disambiguating negation follows immediately.

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 small two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is just about adequate: it names the resource being read but leaves the return shape (list of scripts? keyed by name?) and any error conditions unstated. Given 0% parameter coverage, more detail was warranted.

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 0% for both parameters (fullname required, number optional), so the description carries the full burden and fails to do so. Neither parameter is mentioned, and the definition gives no hint whether fullname is a pipeline path, form key, or build identifier, or what role the optional number plays.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Read") and a specific resource ("main and loaded scripts from an existing editable Pipeline Replay form"), which is meaningfully more precise than a generic script getter. The closing clause "Does not run a build" implicitly separates it from replay_build, though it never names the sibling get_build_scripts that an agent might otherwise reach for.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (the Pipeline Replay form must already exist and be editable) and a clear exclusion (it does not trigger a build). It stops short of an explicit when-not case such as what to call instead when the form does not exist yet, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

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