list_script_includes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the prerequisite that SCRIPTING_ENABLED must be true, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe expected return structure or potential errors, so the additional transparency is limited.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a necessary prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant content. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a read-only list operation with optional filters), the combination of a clear description, complete parameter schema, and safety annotations covers most needed context. The prerequisite is disclosed. It could mention return format or pagination, but the limit parameter and default cover that reasonably. Overall, it is complete enough for a list tool.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, query, active), so the schema already defines their meaning. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('script includes'), making it obvious this is a listing operation. It also includes a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true') that adds context. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_script_include (which retrieves a single item) and create/update_script_include (writes).

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 implies usage ('List script includes') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose this over get_script_include or other list tools. The prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true' is useful but does not clarify the decision between related tools. The usage is largely inferred from the tool name.

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