Read a script

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it names the required scripts:read scope, gives a concrete rate limit shared across the default group, and explains that reads are cheap because they access stored records rather than a venue. It also discloses the returned metadata (created and last changed).

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return content, then adds scope and rate-limit context. The rate-limit explanation is useful, though "Ten a second" slightly repeats "600 requests per minute."

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 no output schema, the description covers what is returned, authentication needs, rate limits, and read-cost behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly without additional context.

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 100%, so the single name parameter is already documented by the schema. The description adds only that the result is one script's source, without further syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource and payload: one script's source plus created and last-changed timestamps. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_scripts and get_script_config by emphasizing a single script's source, though it does not name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by "One script's source" and the required script name, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or sibling alternatives. It focuses on access requirements and rate limits rather than tool selection.

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