storyboard_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Read' implying a safe read-only operation, which is sufficient. However, it does not discuss edge cases, error handling, or any permissions needed, which would improve transparency.

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 very concise with two sentences and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no unnecessary information.

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?

With an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) and the format of the storyboard table. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but could be more 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed meaning for the 'path' parameter, specifying it must be an absolute path to storyboard.md or a directory containing it. This adds critical context beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool reads a PUSHING CREATION storyboard table from a specific file or directory. It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools which are all video/audio processing tools, none of which read storyboards.

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 purpose is clearly defined, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives. However, the sibling list contains no other storyboard read tool, so usage context is implicitly clear.

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