params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses that the script is read without execution, which is important safety context. It also describes the returned structure in detail, though it does not mention error behavior if the part or script 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 front-loaded with the core read operation and then details the returned contents efficiently. It is dense with semicolon-separated details but contains no obvious filler.

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 read-only introspection tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is read, that the script is not executed, what is returned, and how to modify values instead. The main omission is clarifying the name parameter's exact role.

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 contains one parameter, name, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain that name identifies the part, nor does it give format or lookup expectations, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 read operation: it exposes a part's named dimensions from the script without running it, enumerating Dims fields, derived values, and variant overrides. It distinguishes the tool from set_params by directing changes to that sibling, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from read_part.

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?

It gives a clear usage context by saying the script is read without being run, and it explicitly routes modification to set_params rather than a whole rewrite. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over read_part, but the read-only inspection purpose is clear.

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