scripts_get_scripts

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals a required license and the HTTP endpoint but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, response format, or any side effects. The word 'Get' implies no mutation, but the lack of explicit disclosure for a POST endpoint is a gap.

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 well-structured: clear title, one-sentence purpose, license requirement, endpoint, and an example body. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each piece adds relevant context, though slightly verbose with the repeated 'Get Scripts' heading.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, license, endpoint, and gives an example. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral details like pagination or return value structure. Given the rich schema and lack of output schema, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes all parameters and operators. The description's example request body provides a concrete illustration, slightly adding value beyond the schema, but not enough to elevate the score.

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 'Get a list of scripts available in the scripts library,' combining a specific verb ('Get') with a resource ('scripts'). It is distinct from many siblings (e.g., scripts_run_script, scripts_get_script_code) but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar 'scripts_get' tool.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states what it does and includes a license requirement, but does not mention any exclusions or sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the purpose, not directly instructed.

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