list_client_scripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds the prerequisite SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the response format, pagination, or default sorting, beyond what the schema provides.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and includes a concise prerequisite in parentheses. No wasted words.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with complete schema documentation and helpful annotations. The description lacks explicit mention of filtering capabilities or return value structure, but the schema covers the parameters. The prerequisite adds useful context. Overall adequate but not rich.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 holds because schema coverage is 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 verb 'List' and resource 'client scripts' clearly identify the action and target. It's distinguishable from sibling tools like get_client_script, create_client_script, and update_client_script, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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 only usage condition is the prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'. No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to use get_client_script for a single script or create_client_script for a new one.

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