fm_get_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get list' implies a read, but the description says nothing about scope (whole file vs. current layout), whether the result is cached, or permission requirements — meaningful gaps for a metadata-fetching 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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to exemplary conciseness.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the definition is minimally viable, but with no annotations and no output schema it should at least clarify what 'available scripts' are scoped to and how they relate to siblings like 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 single 'database' parameter is documented with an enum), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about what the database argument selects beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get list') and resource ('available scripts'), so an agent can tell broadly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings such as fm_get_metadata or fm_get_layout_metadata, which could plausibly also enumerate scripts, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus fm_get_metadata, fm_get_layout_metadata, or fm_run_script, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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