Read a script's settings

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the required `scripts:read` scope and a concrete rate limit of 600 req/min shared across the `default` group. It also discloses the read path — stored records rather than a venue call — which explains cost/latency in a way annotations cannot. This is exactly the beyond-annotations context the dimension rewards.

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-loaded with the return shape, followed by auth and rate-limit constraints in descending order of importance. Slightly padded: the rate limit is stated twice ('600 requests per minute... Ten a second') and the closing rationale 'which is why they are cheap' is a nicety rather than load-bearing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, scope requirement and rate limits, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It does not say how a missing/unknown script name is handled or whether declared defaults are versioned, which is a minor residual gap.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The script's name'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or resolution detail for `name` (e.g. case sensitivity or whether it must correspond to an existing script). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 spells out the returned resource concretely: each declared field's name, type, default and hint, plus the fact that a running bot may override these. That is a clear, agent-usable definition of what 'config' means and how it differs from get_script or get_bot_config. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 only implied via the clause 'which is what a bot running it may override', which suggests you call this before inspecting or changing per-bot overrides. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as get_bot_config or get_script. Adequate context, but the agent must infer the routing.

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