script_get_source

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

The verb 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, which is important since no annotations are provided. However, the description does not disclose other behavioral details such as return format, error conditions, or whether the operation depends on the active Studio session.

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?

One sentence with no redundant wording. The key action and target scope are front-loaded, and the sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple read operation with one well-documented parameter, but it leaves ambiguity against the sibling tool 'script_read'. Without annotations or an output schema, it could do more to clarify expected return content and when to prefer this tool over its siblings.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage for 'target' with type and example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema documents, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('complete source code') and narrows the target types to Script, LocalScript, or ModuleScript. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'script_read', which appears likely to overlap in purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like script_read, script_set_source, script_patch_source, and script_search_code exist, but the description provides no routing cues or exclusion criteria.

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