read_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: decompilation capability and the client/server execution context limitation. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid paths. The transparency is adequate but incomplete for a read operation.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial exclusion criteria. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the core functionality and a key limitation, but doesn't address return format, error handling, or authentication requirements. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is minimally viable but could be more 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 the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or constraints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'read' and resource 'source code of a script', with additional clarification about decompilation when needed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_script' by focusing on reading rather than execution, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_properties' or 'list_children'.

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 provides clear context about when NOT to use this tool: 'Cannot read server-side scripts from a client execution context as their source is not replicated.' This gives important exclusion criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_properties' for script metadata.

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