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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying exactly which fields are returned and that the command list is deliberately omitted. This helps set expectations about response content without repeating annotation information.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists concrete return fields, and adds the key exclusion at the end. Every part contributes useful information with no wasted words.

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 listing tool with one required parameter, the description is complete: it states the resource scope, enumerates return fields, and notes the command-list exclusion. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no additional behavioral context is necessary.

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 provides only the parameter name 'projectId' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description says 'in a project' but does not explicitly explain that the required projectId identifies the project or mention how to obtain a valid projectId. It partially compensates, but the parameter semantics are still somewhat underspecified.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('scripts in a project'), and enumerates the exact returned fields: id, name, bot type, step count, and current revision version. It also differentiates itself by explicitly saying it returns 'without the full command list', distinguishing it from get_script and list_script_revisions.

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 makes clear this is a summary listing tool and that full command lists are not included, implying that a different tool should be used when full commands are needed. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the usage context is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose it for project-level script summaries.

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