norns_list_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses the return structure (scripts[].loadable) and the naming format, which is genuinely useful. It omits whether the scan is filesystem-wide/expensive, whether it can fail on a missing ~/dust/code directory, and doesn't explicitly confirm it is a side-effect-free read.

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 sentences with no filler; the file-location scope is front-loaded and the name-format hint follows. The first sentence is a fragment rather than a proper clause, which slightly weakens readability.

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 not be enumerated, and the description still highlights the one field an agent must understand (scripts[].loadable and its two accepted formats). For a zero-parameter listing tool this is nearly complete, with only failure/edge-case behavior left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly introduces none, so there is no parameter semantics to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies given the absence of inputs.

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 names the resource precisely (every folder in ~/dust/code and its .lua files), which is a specific listing behavior distinct from siblings like norns_current_script or norns_read_script. It implicitly distinguishes itself as the discovery tool by naming norns_load_script as the consumer, though it never states the verb 'list' outright.

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?

Pointing out that data.scripts[].loadable holds the names norns_load_script accepts gives a clear use context: call this before loading a script. It does not address alternatives (e.g., norns_dust_inventory) or explicitly exclude any use case, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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