read_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation and suggests output includes line numbers, but it does not detail how the file content is returned (e.g., full vs. partial), error handling, or that line_count/line_start modify output. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Read a script file') and a key output detail ('with line numbers'). Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 read tool with a well-documented schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks context about what 'script' refers to (GDScript vs. other), whether it reads the entire file by default, and how line_count/line_start interact. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't explicitly mention return format beyond line numbers, leaving some ambiguity.

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 fully documents all three parameters with descriptions (path relative to root, line_count optional, line_start optional). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating line numbers, so it does not exceed the schema's coverage. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool reads a script file and includes line numbers, making its primary purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like read_script_structure or list_scripts, but the 'with line numbers' detail hints at raw content viewing, which is a distinguishing feature.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_script_structure, list_scripts, or diff_script. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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