Project Package Scripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's claim of returning data is consistent and adds the specific behavior of reading package.json scripts. However, no behavioral edge cases are disclosed (e.g., missing package.json, invalid path), and the description does not go beyond what the annotations already imply.

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 a single, well-structured sentence of only 9 words. It contains no redundancy and is appropriately front-loaded with the key action and object.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, safe read, output schema exists), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks important context about error handling and preconditions (e.g., project must be Node). The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is average.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter documentation in the schema. The description only indirectly hints that 'projectPath' should point to a Node project root, but does not explain the format, constraints, or what happens if the path is invalid. This is insufficient for a required parameter with no schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and a clear resource 'scripts from package.json for a Node project', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'project.index' or 'project.snapshot' by focusing on a specific file and data type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must be Node-based with a package.json) or situations where it should not be used. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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