get_scripts

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it declares read-only semantics, describes the exact return shape, and states the non-obvious filtering rule that only objects with non-empty script or UI are listed. It does not cover behavior when no game is loaded or output size concerns, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compact lines: purpose first, then the return contract, then the filtering caveat. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (read-only) is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's inline return shape is essential and adequate, and with no parameters and no annotations there is little else to document. It stops just short by not stating prerequisites (a loaded game) as a failure mode or hinting at output volume for large games.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies there is no filtering or scoping argument beyond the implicit 'loaded game' context.

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 and resource: read the loaded game's Lua scripts and UI XML, with an explicit read-only marker. It is clearly distinct from the mutating/executing siblings like run_lua or move_object, though it never names them directly.

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 intent of reading scripts is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing against alternatives such as inspect_object (single object) or run_lua (execute rather than read). Usage must be inferred.

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