fm_get_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but doesn't state that explicitly, nor does it mention scope (database-specific) or any restrictions. Lacks details on authentication requirements or rate limits.

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?

Single short sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Perfectly concise.

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 no output schema, the description doesn't explain the return format (list of script names? IDs?). It also doesn't mention that 'database' is required, though schema covers that. The tool is simple but lacks clarity on what an agent should do with the results, especially for chaining with fm_run_script.

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 description coverage is 100% (the 'database' parameter is fully described with enum and description). The tool description adds no additional parameter insights, so the baseline of 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 states a clear verb (Get) and resource (list of available scripts). It's distinct from siblings like fm_run_script (which executes scripts) and fm_list_databases (which lists databases), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like fm_get_metadata or fm_run_script. The description simply states what it does without context on prerequisites or typical usage flow.

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