list_parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'List' plus 'settings in effect' does establish a read-only enumeration that returns current-state settings. It does not disclose pagination, result ordering, or handling of an empty workspace, so behavioral context is partial rather than rich.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause 'with the settings in effect' is vague enough to be the one weak point, but it does convey that output includes current settings.

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 takes no arguments and has an output schema, so the description only needs to say what is enumerated and roughly what comes back — both are covered. Missing are any hints about result size, ordering, or relationship to read_part, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. 'With the settings in effect' adds a small amount of framing about what the enumeration reflects but no parameter-level detail is needed.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'part scripts in the workspace' are both explicit, which separates it from read_part (single) and write_part/new_part (mutation). However, 'part scripts' is slightly ambiguous against the surrounding family of part-tools, and no sibling is named to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus read_part, list_versions, or describe_model, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration entry point and that read_part follows for details.

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