ass_get_script_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly conveys a read operation and usefully discloses ordering fidelity and raw-line preservation, but says nothing about permissions, whether doc_id defaults to the active document, or any error/empty behavior.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in one short sentence, but the bulk of the text exhaustively documents return fields that the output schema already declares, so a large share of the description does not earn its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition is adequate, but it omits the doc_id semantics and any usage context. The return documentation is redundant given the output schema, so the description is not adding value where it is actually needed.

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 0% and the single parameter doc_id (nullable, default null) is never mentioned in the description. The agent is left to guess whether null means the active document; the description does not compensate for the coverage gap it should have covered.

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 specific verb+resource ("Read `[Script Info]`") cleanly separates it from the mutation siblings ass_set_script_info and ass_remove_script_info. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the potentially confusable ass_document_info, leaving one ambiguity unresolved.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what precondition applies, or which sibling to prefer for related reads (e.g. ass_document_info, ass_list_styles). The description jumps straight into return-value semantics, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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