Leer Guion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Lee' signals a read operation with no obvious side effects, and the phrase 'json (lista de escenas)' discloses the JSON output shape. It does not discuss error behavior or prerequisite project existence, but this is a simple read tool.

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 compact and front-loaded; the first line states the action and target, and the 'formato:' line serves as a quick reference for valid values. There is no filler or repetition beyond a useful format reminder.

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 three-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description is only partially complete. It covers the core behavior and format choices, and an output schema exists for return values, but an agent cannot fully determine what `proyecto` should contain or how `serie` affects the output.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies `formato` (markdown | fountain | json) and hints at `serie` via '(o serie)'. The required `proyecto` parameter is not defined at all, and the behavior of `serie` as a boolean is not explained.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Lee') and object ('guion'/'serie') and explicitly lists the three output formats (markdown, fountain, json), including that json returns a list of scenes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like info_proyecto or listar_proyectos, which serve different purposes.

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 intended usage is implied: call this tool when you need a script or series read in markdown, fountain, or JSON. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives, so an agent has to infer the boundary from sibling names.

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