Scripts List

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It instead adds genuinely new context: the HTTP verb/path, the required OAuth scope, the API version pin, and the envelope structure of the response.

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?

Five short, front-loaded lines: purpose first, then transport, auth, version, and return shape. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the response envelope and keys, and it covers auth scope and API version. Minor gaps remain around default sort order and what a 'script' resource actually contains, but an agent could call this correctly as-is.

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%, with page, per_page, fields, and response_format all documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's return envelope (count, page, per_page, has_more, next_page, items) indirectly signals pagination semantics but adds no new parameter-level detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List scripts associated with the store'), which cleanly separates it from the get/create/update/delete script siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the plural list phrasing makes the scope unambiguous.

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 'Required scope: none (any valid token)' line tells the agent there is no auth prerequisite, and pagination fields imply a paged-listing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. tiendanube_scripts_get or guidance on when full enumeration is appropriate.

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