script_read

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey safety and behavior. The verb 'Reads' and the word 'buffer' make clear this is a non-mutating lookup, but the description doesn't disclose failure modes (e.g., script not open or path invalid) or dependencies such as an active Studio buffer. This is adequate for a simple read but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's name, source, and scope without filler. The 'Official Roblox Studio' prefix is mildly redundant but doesn't hurt.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential what and where. The absence of error/edge-case details is minor for a low-complexity tool, so it is nearly 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?

The schema already documents scriptPath as a DataModel instance path with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond locating the source in the editor buffer; it doesn't clarify path formats or relationship to the single parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Reads'), a clear resource ('Luau script source'), and a precise location ('Studio Script Editor buffer'). It is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the nearby sibling script_get_source, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'directly from Studio Script Editor buffer' implies the intended context: reading the current in-editor script buffer rather than persisted source. It gives no explicit when-to-use/not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as script_get_source, so usage context is only implied.

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