ap_project_list_scripts

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

The description goes beyond a simple listing by disclosing that the tool operates in a degraded mode, returning a snapshot that may be empty or stale. This is a significant behavioral trait that helps manage expectations, and no annotations were provided to offset this.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that deliver the core purpose and a critical caveat without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and front-loads the primary action.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the tool's purpose and the degraded state of the data. This covers all essential aspects an agent needs to decide when and how to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers 100% of the input surface. Since there are no parameters, the description cannot add meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, warranting the baseline score of 4.

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: listing script assets attached to the project. It is specific about the resource and action, and the additional caveat about degraded mode further clarifies the tool's purpose 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 an implied usage hint by noting the degraded snapshot behavior, which indirectly tells users when the data may be unreliable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this tool over others, so guidance is only implicit.

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