list_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is clearly a read operation and it usefully discloses the default root ('game'), but it says nothing about recursion depth, result shape (paths vs. instances), volume limits, or pagination — all relevant for a tree-traversal listing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier and default value are packed efficiently into one clause.

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?

For a simple no-output-schema list tool the description covers the essentials, but with zero annotation coverage and no return-shape disclosure an agent still cannot predict whether results are recursive, what identifiers come back, or whether there are size limits.

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 0% for the single 'root' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by noting the parameter is a root container and defaults to 'game', but stops short of specifying the expected format (instance path string vs. reference) or how deep the traversal goes.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Script/LocalScript/ModuleScript), and clarifies the scope is 'under a root'. It is distinguishable from grep_scripts and create_script by naming the exact instance classes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_children or find_instances.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb — an agent can infer this is for enumerating scripts, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as grep_scripts for content search or find_instances for generic enumeration.

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