affinity_list_library_scripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. What the description omits is what the listing contains (script names only? metadata? bodies?) and whether results are paginated or capped, which would be useful for a listing operation.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke it correctly. It is incomplete in that it gives no hint about the shape or scope of the returned list (library-installed scripts vs. bundled examples), which is the main ambiguity an agent would face here.

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 clarify beyond the input schema, and the 100% schema coverage baseline applies. Nothing in the description adds or detracts from parameter meaning.

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 ('scripts in Affinity's script library'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns at a coarse level. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related siblings affinity_read_library_script and affinity_save_script_to_library, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The natural workflow (list library scripts, then read one with affinity_read_library_script) is only inferable from the sibling names, not from the description, and nothing says when this is preferable to affinity_list_sdk_documentation.

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