affinity_read_library_script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data and the description is not obliged to restate it. Beyond that, the description adds no behavior — nothing about what is returned (script source vs. metadata), or what happens when the title does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Brevity is appropriate here, though the terseness leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions rather than earning extra credit.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema needs little, but the absence of return-value expectations and not-found behavior leaves an agent guessing at the result shape after a successful call.

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% for the single 'title' parameter, so the description carries the burden; 'named script' does imply the parameter is the script's library name, which is a small but real addition over a bare 'title' string. It still says nothing about exact-match vs. fuzzy lookup or case sensitivity.

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?

States a specific verb-plus-resource: read a named script from Affinity's script library. An agent can tell it apart from affinity_list_library_scripts (enumerate) and affinity_save_script_to_library (write) without opening schemas, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to affinity_list_library_scripts for discovering valid titles or to affinity_execute_script for running the result. The workflow (list, then read by title) must be inferred entirely.

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