read_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Returns the file content as text,' lacking details on error handling (e.g., file not found), permissions, side effects, or whether the file is consumed. Important behavioral context is missing.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and location, the second provides a helpful tip. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given an output schema (not shown), the return type is covered. The description provides the key context of the temporary directory and a reference to list_files. However, it lacks information on error cases (e.g., file not found), encoding, or path specification, which are minor gaps for a simple read tool.

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 input schema has one required filename parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that the file is read from the session's temporary directory, implying filename is relative to that directory. However, it does not specify whether the .m extension is required or if paths are allowed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states 'Read a MATLAB .m script file from the session's temporary directory.' It specifies the verb (read), resource (MATLAB .m script file), and location (temporary directory). The mention of returning file content as text further clarifies the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_data and read_image by specifying .m scripts.

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 advises 'Use list_files to see available files,' providing clear guidance on a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like read_data for other file types.

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