extension_read_script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns source code and scopes to installed scripts in a Scripts subfolder, but it does not disclose how the script is located, whether category affects the subfolder, or possible error behavior. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Return the source' appears first, and the rest of the sentence adds useful scoping to 'installed script in a Scripts subfolder.'

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?

With an output schema present, omitting return-value details is acceptable. However, the description leaves the category parameter's role unexplained, and given that both parameters are undocumented, the agent may not know how to correctly construct the call. It is adequate for a simple read tool but has clear gaps.

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?

Input schema has two parameters (name and category) with zero schema description coverage. The description never mentions either parameter, leaving the agent to infer that 'name' identifies the script and that 'category' probably selects a subfolder. This fails to compensate for the complete absence of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the source of an installed script in a Scripts subfolder.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like extension_list_scripts, extension_write_script, and extension_remove_script, which handle listing, writing, and removing scripts respectively.

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 by indicating it reads an installed script's source from a Scripts subfolder, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling names offer context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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