List scripts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add operational nuance, and it does: it discloses the extra result fields, the existence of nil-parented/loaded-module/running scripts only reachable via include_hidden, the executor-support caveat, and the connected-state requirement. It does not mention result ordering, cost of the hidden scan, or what an empty result means.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the optional hidden-script behavior and the prerequisite. The phrase 'of the game' and the parenthetical list are dense but each clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description usefully fills the return-shape gap (path, class, disabled) and flags the connected-state prerequisite and executor dependency. The remaining omissions, default limit of 100 or how hidden results are distinguished, are minor and partly covered by the schema defaults.

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%, so a 3 is the baseline; the description earns above that by expanding include_hidden beyond the schema's terse 'scripts outside the tree' into concrete categories (nil parented instances, loaded modules, running scripts). The other five parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is adequate given its quality.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the Scripts, LocalScripts and ModuleScripts of the game') and states exactly what each result carries: path, class, and disabled status. That is far more concrete than the title 'List scripts', but it never names the nearby alternatives (search_scripts, semantic_search, get_script_source), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

It gives clear conditional context: include_hidden extends the scan to out-of-tree scripts 'when the executor supports it', and the call 'Requires the connected state', which tells the agent a prerequisite must be satisfied first. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or routing to search_scripts when the caller already has a name or pattern to match.

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