Read scripts

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable context: it reads the live editor buffer (including unsaved changes) and returns line numbers acceptable to script_edit. This goes beyond what annotations provide and warns against stale saved data.

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?

Front-loaded purpose in first sentence, followed by two concise paragraphs each adding essential context—source-buffer rationale and batching/range guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Covers critical operational details: live buffer source, line-number compatibility, batching, and range semantics. With no output schema, the note about line numbers hints at the return format, but an explicit return structure would make it fully 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?

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds operational semantics: startLine/endLine apply to all given paths, and paths should be batched. This clarifies parameter interaction beyond raw schema, earning above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states it reads Luau source from scripts, and explicitly distinguishes from the script_edit sibling by noting line-number compatibility. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance: batch all scripts in one call, and explains that startLine/endLine apply uniformly across all given paths. It clarifies the data source (live buffer vs saved property) which informs when to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude other read-like siblings like script_grep.

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