script-paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose output format, ordering, whether default paths are included, or any prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and clearly names the resource, making it concise and easy to parse.

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, parameterless listing tool, the description gives the core purpose and output area. However, since there is no output schema, a little more detail about what 'script search paths' encompasses (e.g., user scripts vs. system paths) would improve completeness. Still adequate.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no meaningful parameter information is missing. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('Blender script search paths and configured script directories'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like script-run_file or script-report by focusing on the path listing aspect.

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 guidance on when this tool should be preferred over alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the sibling list.

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