get_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool reads Scripts.rxdata and returns metadata (index, name, source length) rather than source content, which is valuable context. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, but 'List' implies a read-only operation, and no side effects are suggested.

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 that is front-loaded with the action ('List all') and resource, followed by the output fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 list-all tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the exact file (Scripts.rxdata) and the fields returned (index, name, source length). It could optionally mention ordering or filtering behavior, but this is not critical for a simple list operation.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter-specific information because none are 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 description clearly states the tool lists all RGSS scripts from Scripts.rxdata and specifies the returned fields (index, name, source length). It uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_script (single script) and search_scripts (filtered search).

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 implies use when one needs a complete inventory of scripts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_script or search_scripts. No exclusions or recommended alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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