Read script events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions return shape and references external skill for semantics. It does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or authorization requirements, lacking sufficient behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states action, second adds shape detail and reference. No waste.

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?

Given the complexity (no output schema, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks detail on locator construction, error cases, and return format beyond shape. The external reference partially compensates but is not sufficient.

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 the description does not explain the 'locator' parameter structure beyond 'given owner and key'. The complex schema with multiple shapes is left undocumented, requiring inference from the schema 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?

The description clearly states it returns ScriptEvent[] for a given owner and key, with specific detail on event shape. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like patch_script (write) and other read tools by focusing on script retrieval.

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?

The description implies usage for reading scripts but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of when not to use or comparison with siblings like patch_script for modifications.

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