site_registered_scripts_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'all registered scripts' indicates comprehensive output. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format, which are unaddressed but not critical for a simple retrieval tool.

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 states the primary purpose, the second provides workflow context. Every word is purposeful, and it is appropriately short for the tool's simplicity.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's role in the script lifecycle and clarifies the distinction between registered and applied scripts. It does not mention pagination or return structure, but these are not essential for a basic 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?

Schema coverage is 100%—the only parameter site_id is fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No compensation needed.

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 all registered scripts for a site', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'site_applied_scripts_list' by focusing on registered scripts, and the workflow sentence clarifies the relationship between registered and applied scripts.

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?

Provides clear context for use by explaining the registration-to-application workflow: first register via Register Script endpoints, then apply via Site or Page endpoints. This implies when to use this tool (to see registered scripts before applying), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.

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