list_client_scripts

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

The description adds the prerequisite condition beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), which indicate the tool is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling when SCRIPTING_ENABLED is false, pagination details, or response format. The annotation already covers safety, so the description provides marginal added value.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, earning it a maximum score for conciseness and structure.

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 list tool with 0 required parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the main action and a critical prerequisite. However, it could be slightly more complete by briefly noting the expected return type (e.g., an array of client script objects), but given the tool's low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters (type, limit, table, active), so the schema already fully documents each parameter's meaning. The description does not add any additional context or syntax details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 client scripts and specifies a prerequisite condition (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true). The verb 'List' and resource 'client scripts' match the tool name and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_client_script or create_client_script.

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 provides a clear usage guideline by stating the requirement 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true', helping the agent know when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative listing tools, though the tool name and context are sufficient for differentiation.

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