List parsed scripts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, so the description's addition of what 'parsed' includes (entry modules, required modules, Babel plugins, node internals) adds meaningful behavioral scope beyond the structured data. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a practical usage hint in the second. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it defines what is listed, explicitly mentions the file-url use case, and annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema exists, but the purpose and expected utility are clear enough for correct invocation.

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 single optional parameter sessionId is fully documented in the schema with its own description. The tool description does not add further parameter guidance, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('List scripts') and the specific resource ('scripts the inspector has parsed'), with concrete examples of script categories. This distinguishes it from sibling debug tools like debug_list_breakpoints or debug_list_sessions.

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?

Explicitly states a concrete use case: 'Use this to find the file URL to break in an extension.' This gives an agent clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not discuss when not to use it or name alternatives.

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