site_applied_scripts_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It uses the verb 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it mention return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal—it adds no context beyond the primary action.

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 two sentences: the first is a clear, specific statement of the tool's purpose; the second provides valuable workflow context. There is no redundancy or wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and workflow context. It could benefit from clarifying what 'scripts applied' includes (e.g., whether inline scripts are included) and explicitly distinguishing from site_registered_scripts_list, but the current description is sufficiently complete for a simple list operation.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter site_id, with a description 'Unique identifier for the site.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per the calibration baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 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 states the tool's function: 'Get all scripts applied to a site by the App.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from related tools like site_registered_scripts_list (which lists registered scripts) and add_inline_site_script (which adds). The additional workflow hint about registration and application clarifies the context without ambiguity.

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 workflow: first register scripts via Register Script endpoints, then apply them via Site or Page endpoints. This implies the correct use case for the current tool (inspecting applied scripts) and distinguishes it from registration-related tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for listing registered scripts, so it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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