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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: the shape of what comes back and the explicit exclusion of the full command list, which tells the agent to fetch get_script for commands. The note that tags are team-shared adds operational context about a shared namespace.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields. The trailing tag-management sentence is slightly off-topic for a list operation but is short and does convey a real constraint rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and states what is deliberately omitted (command list). For a simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete; only projectId semantics and behavior on an invalid project are left unaddressed.

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 a single required parameter, projectId, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. 'In a project' only loosely ties projectId to a project identifier and gives no format, ID-source, or error behavior (e.g. unknown project). This is minimal but present.

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 (List) and resource (scripts in a project) and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, bot type, step count, revision version, tag names). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_scenarios or list_script_assets by the script-specific field set, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 'when' is only implied: an agent needs a roster of scripts in a project. The explicit guidance present is about tagging ('reuse a name the list tools already report, create a new tag only when the user asks'), which is downstream advice rather than guidance on choosing this tool over get_script or list_script_revisions.

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