list_scripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it discloses that isShared scripts cannot be imported, exported, or deleted directly, and explains how to work around that (fork or UI unsubscribe). With no output schema present, the description also carries the burden of describing return fields, which it does thoroughly.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary action and output, the second explains the shared-script constraint, and the next two give targeted next steps. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it specifies what the tool returns, identifies the isShared edge case, and covers the two relevant follow-up actions (forking and unsubscribing). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its results.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter-related details because none exist, and no further compensation is needed.

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 all scripts (UserScripts & AgentScripts) installed in Customaise', and enumerates the exact returned fields (IDs, names, enabled status, match patterns, shared status). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_tabs and list_webmcp_tools, which target different resources.

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 contextual guidance: it explains that shared scripts are read-only subscriptions and explicitly directs the agent to import_script with fork:true for editing and to the extension UI for uninstalling. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling listing tools, but the usage context is unambiguous and names an alternative tool where relevant.

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