read_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read the contents' but omits details like encoding, error handling, file existence behavior, or return format. For a simple read, this is insufficiently transparent.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It directly conveys the tool's purpose without any waste, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explanation of return format (e.g., plain text, raw string) and error behavior (e.g., if path is invalid). For a complete picture, this information would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% (single 'path' parameter with clear description). The tool description adds 'a GDScript file', which is largely redundant with the schema's example. No additional semantic value is provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('contents of a GDScript file'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'edit_script', 'create_script', or 'validate_script'. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage for reading script contents but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., 'edit_script' for modifications). Context from sibling names partially covers this, but the description itself lacks direct when/when-not advice.

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