tool_read_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does clarify the scope of what is returned (the entire block under the label, not just its signature), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, behavior when the label does not exist, or whether jumps/includes are followed.

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 core action, then a short elaboration of the return value, then a compact args list. It is well within a reasonable size, with only mild redundancy between the opening sentence and the 'Returns the complete Ren'Py script block' sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and both parameters are given meaning. What is missing is the prerequisite that the label must exist and how to discover it, plus any note on error behavior for an unknown label – minor gaps for a read-only lookup tool.

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% – properties carry only bare titles ('Project Path', 'Label Name'), so the description must compensate, and it does: project_path is specified as an absolute path to the project root, and label_name is given concrete examples ('start', 'chapter_01'). It stops short of clarifying accepted path forms or whether nested/local labels are valid.

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 verb+resource ('Read the script content of a specific label') and immediately elaborates the return scope ('complete Ren'Py script block ... including all dialogue, menus, and nested logic'). This clearly separates it from siblings like tool_list_labels or tool_find_references, which enumerate rather than return script bodies.

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?

No when-to-use/when-not guidance and no prerequisites are stated. It never tells the agent that a label name must already be known (e.g. discovered via tool_list_labels) or how this differs from tool_list_definitions or tool_find_references for locating script content. Usage is only inferable from the purpose line.

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