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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by defining the asset types and explaining how paths are used as command reference keys.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are stated immediately, and the path-as-key clarification is meaningful rather than redundant.

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-only list operation with rich annotations and only two straightforward parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly state the return shape or empty behavior, but the path-as-key sentence provides enough functional context, especially since no output schema exists.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It never explains scriptId or projectId, how they relate, or where they come from. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no direct parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and clearly identifies the resource: files attached to a script, with concrete examples (request bodies, upload files, Playwright support files). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_scripts or get_script_asset.

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 implies use when you need to enumerate the files attached to a script and adds that each path is the key a command references. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_script_asset or put_script_asset, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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