read_script

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the three output modes and their content, which is real behavioral value, but it omits anything about read-only safety, error behavior for a missing file, or size limits, and "outline is the same as JSON" is ambiguous rather than clarifying.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, then the format variants in a single dense sentence. No wasted sentences, though the semicolon-chained enumeration of three modes is slightly harder to scan than a short list would be.

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 only two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is close to adequate – the format descriptions effectively describe return shapes. It still leaves error conditions and the ambiguity of "outline is the same as JSON" unexplained.

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 50% – the `file` parameter is documented in the schema and the `format` enum is not. The description compensates well by defining all three format values and naming "text" as the default, though it adds nothing about the file parameter itself.

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?

"Read a script" names a specific verb and resource, and the format clauses make clear what comes back. Against siblings like edit_beat or insert_scene the read-only nature is obvious, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with list_scripts or validate_script.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "ids to quote in edits" hints this tool precedes the edit_* family, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of the prerequisite that list_scripts supplies the file name (that only appears in the schema).

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