get_shelf_tool_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that scripts are typically two or three lines wrapping a toolutils worker, and that reported imports indicate follow-up reading. It stops short of stating permissions or exact return structure, but gives meaningful behavioral expectations beyond the schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by rationale and expectation-setting. It is slightly more prose than strictly necessary but every sentence adds actionable context, so little is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (script, help, imports) and how to use it. It is essentially complete for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around exact return format.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter. It does: 'tool_name: Internal tool name, from list_shelf_tools' explains what the value is and where to obtain it, adding real meaning over the bare string type.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the script a shelf tool runs, plus its help and imports.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_shelf_tools (which enumerates) and run_shelf_tool (which executes), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'This is how you learn SideFX's own recipe instead of reinventing it,' and notes that imports point to what to read next. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the when-to-use motivation is clear.

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