get_shelf_tool_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only ('Read') and gives useful behavioral hints about typical script contents and imports. However, it does not disclose error cases, missing-tool behavior, or output formatting, so some behavioral uncertainty remains.

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 compact and well-structured. The opening sentence states the action, the second adds purpose and context, and the Args block cleanly documents the single parameter. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description gives the return scope (script, help, imports), parameter source, and typical content. It lacks an explicit output schema or detailed return format, but the described behavior is sufficient for this low-complexity tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully does: tool_name is described as an 'Internal tool name, from list_shelf_tools,' adding provenance and type guidance beyond the bare schema property. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 the tool reads the script a shelf tool runs, plus its help and imports. This specific verb-plus-resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like run_shelf_tool and list_shelf_tools, and the intent is immediately understandable.

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 explains when to use the tool: 'This is how you learn SideFX's own recipe instead of reinventing it.' It also directs the agent to obtain tool_name from list_shelf_tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a focused read-only utility.

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