list_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, pagination behavior, or what happens if folder_id is invalid. It adds minimal context beyond the bare statement of the operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (folder paths). It could mention filtering via folder_id, but the schema covers that. The low complexity means this is nearly complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (folder_id) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond implying that all scripts are listed when no filter is applied, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all scripts with their folder paths', identifying the verb (List), resource (scripts), and scope (all), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_script_folders and get_script.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to list all scripts. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the simple nature of the tool and sibling context (e.g., search_scripts for filtering) makes usage implicit.

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