read_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation and the context clarifies the repo-local scope, but it does not describe error behavior, file-not-found handling, or access constraints. The existing output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 short sentences with the core operation front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it reads and from where, and the second states when to use it.

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 with an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource location and the primary usage scenario. The only meaningful gap is file-name format expectations, which are left to inference.

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 for the single file_name parameter. It does clarify that the file is a Lua script located in the MCP repo's scripts/ folder, which adds meaning beyond the schema, but it omits details such as whether the .lua extension is required or whether subpaths are allowed.

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 gives a specific verb (read), resource (Lua script), and location (MCP repo's scripts/ folder). It distinguishes the tool from broad read tools by scoping to repo-local scripts, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with similar siblings such as read_directory_script.

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 context sentence clearly states when to use the tool: to inspect repo-local scripts before editing, validating, or syncing. It provides actionable context but does not state exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools for other script locations.

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