read_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Reads' clearly indicates a non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose details such as path interpretation, encoding, error behavior, or whether the full file content is returned verbatim.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It states the verb, target file type, and what is returned in a compact, front-loaded way.

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?

For a simple read tool, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks essential context for calling it correctly, such as how project_path and script_path relate and what the output looks like. There is no output schema to fill that gap.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to project_path or script_path. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not explain expected formats, path relationships, or whether paths are relative to the project root.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('GDScript (.gd) file's contents'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like write_script and edit_script by focusing only on reading.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention write_script, edit_script, or any conditions that would route an agent to one tool or the other.

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