read_script_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is a 'read' (implying non-mutating) and lists the broad set of information retrieved, giving agents a clear expectation of what the tool accesses. It could mention limitations or side effects, but the verb and scope are clear enough for a read-only 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the tool's capabilities without redundancy. Every item in the list earns its place, and there is no filler or extraneous detail.

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 tool is complex with 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description enumerates all the components of context it reads (source window, dependencies, dependents, remotes, functions, attributes, source hash). This provides a solid high-level understanding, though it does not specify output structure or parameter combinations, which would be helpful but not essential.

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?

All parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'source window', which aligns with start_line and line_count, but it adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific verb 'Reads' and identifies a distinct resource ('live source window') along with a comprehensive list of contextual elements (dependencies, dependents, remotes, functions, attributes, source hash). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_source or get_related_code, which focus on narrower aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention specific use cases, exclusions, or when another sibling tool would be more appropriate. It is purely a functional description without selection advice.

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