AviUtl2 付属ドキュメントの参照

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads documents, maps enum values to actual files, and clarifies that offset/limit are line-based. For a read-only tool, this adequately reveals the key behavior without contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently lists the document mappings and pagination details. Every clause contributes value with no redundancy.

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 document reader with three enum options and pagination, the description covers the essential selection and usage details. It does not explicitly state return format, but reading a document implies text output, and default limits are captured in the schema.

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?

The schema only describes limit/offset; the doc parameter is an opaque enum. The description adds essential semantics by mapping each doc value to its file and content, making the parameter meaningful. It also reinforces the line-based interpretation of offset/limit.

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 explicitly states the tool reads bundled documents and enumerates three specific documents (readme, lua, style) with their content scope. This is a clear verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_project.

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 gives clear context on what each document covers (e.g., lua for Lua script specs), guiding the agent on which doc to select. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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