source_list_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the index is captured when DevCDP attaches, which is a meaningful timing trait, and it correctly implies a read-only listing operation. It could add more about whether the list updates dynamically, but the provided timing context is a solid addition.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The core action and return info come first, then the timing nuance, then a practical usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple, has no required parameters, and the description covers what is listed and why. Since there is no output schema, the description's mention of size and source map helps fill the return-value gap. Missing details like dynamic runtime script inclusion are minor for this use case.

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% and the schema already documents limit, filter, and with_source_maps. The description adds a small behavioral clue for filter ('URL substring') and application context, but it does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 the tool lists JavaScript files loaded in the page and specifies what information is returned (size, source map presence). It is specific enough to distinguish it from broad debugger or navigation tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling source_list_files or source_get_script.

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 gives useful context for when to use it—before setting a breakpoint, and notes it works on already-open pages. However, it does not mention alternatives or any conditions where another tool should be used instead, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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