Godot Script Read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'read' (implying non-destructive), but doesn't mention anything about being read-only, performance characteristics, encoding handling, or interaction with the Godot editor's project state. For a read operation the ambiguity is low, but there's essentially no behavioral detail beyond the verb itself.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, appropriately front-loaded. It's efficient, though it's arguably too sparse — this borders on under-specification rather than genuine 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?

With zero annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry substantial weight. A one-line description for a tool with an unexplained path parameter and no documented behavior is incomplete for an agent trying to determine path format, return format, or how it differs from godot_file_read on a .gd file.

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% and there is one parameter (path) that lacks any schema-level description. The description does not compensate by explaining what 'path' should be - whether it's an absolute filesystem path, a Godot res:// path, or a project-relative path. This is a meaningful gap because siblings like godot_project_grep or godot_file_read may use different path conventions.

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+resource ('Read a GDScript or C# script file'), clearly identifying the purpose. Distinguishes from siblings like godot_script_list (lists scripts), godot_script_patch (modifies scripts), and godot_file_read (reads general files). The distinction from godot_file_read is implied but not explicitly stated, so it doesn't quite reach a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs godot_file_read or godot_script_list. There's no context about scenarios where this is preferred, nor exclusions. The intended use case (reading a script by path vs listing them or reading arbitrary files) is only implicit through the tool naming.

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