norns_read_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two key traits: 'Read only' and 'max 256 KB'. What it omits is what happens at the boundary — whether oversized files are truncated, errored, or partially returned — and how a missing script or file is reported. Decent disclosure, but the edge-case behavior an agent needs to interpret results is absent.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the two concrete path examples. Every clause earns its place with no filler; the only mild cost is the dense semicolon style, which reads more like notes than a sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and for a two-parameter read tool the definition covers purpose, path resolution, read-only nature, and a size limit. It falls short only on absent-file and truncation behavior, which are minor for a simple read.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters and it largely does: 'script' is a folder/file stem resolving to <script>/<script>.lua, and 'file' is a relative path within that folder (lib/x.lua). The only gap is the behavior of 'file' when omitted, since the schema gives it a null default but the description never says the main script is read in that case.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Source of a script') and immediately grounds it with the path-resolution rule: script='awake' reads awake/awake.lua. It is clear this is a file-content read, distinguishable from siblings like norns_list_scripts or norns_current_script, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting source text rather than listing scripts or reading params. There is no statement of when to prefer this over norns_list_scripts (to discover names) or norns_current_script (to identify the active script), and no note on prerequisites such as the script existing.

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