list_scripts

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (JSON array) and metadata fields, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention side effects, pagination, or whether results are sorted. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about the lack of modifications.

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 sentences, each valuable: first states action and result, second clarifies output format, third provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description provides essential metadata fields and usage context. It differentiates from siblings well. While the exact JSON structure is not detailed, the listed fields are sufficient for a simple list tool. Could improve by specifying property names or sorting behavior.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed. It implicitly confirms no inputs, which is sufficient.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all previously saved scripts'. It provides metadata fields and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like run_script by stating 'Use to discover available scripts before running them with run_script by name'.

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 clear usage contexts: discovering scripts before running them or auditing existence. It mentions a specific alternative (run_script) by name, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list other alternatives like read_script.

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