List userscripts installed in Tampermonkey

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for adding context beyond that. It discloses that the tool reaches into Tampermonkey's internal API (loadTree) and that compatibility is conditional — official Firefox build works out of the box, while a converted Chrome package requires patching INTERNAL_PAGE_PROTOCOLS to moz-extension:. That is exactly the kind of failure-mode information an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the action and mechanism, the second states the environment caveat. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is wasted or repeated from the title.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, mechanism, and environment constraints. The one remaining gap is the shape of the returned data — it does not say whether results include script names, enabled state, or metadata — which an agent would otherwise need before consuming the response.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not pad with parameter talk, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the userscripts Tampermonkey currently manages', which is plainly distinct from the sibling operations install/set_enabled/remove. It also names the underlying mechanism (loadTree), reinforcing what the call actually does. It stops short of an explicit contrast with siblings, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'currently manages' — you call this to enumerate installed userscripts — and the second sentence gives a real prerequisite about browser/extension packaging. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the other tampermonkey tools or what to do if the enumeration fails, so guidance remains inferred.

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