bgi_list_js_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load: it discloses scope (js/ partition), a snapshot count and date, and that detail mode performs an extra manifest fetch. It does not say whether the listing is fetched remotely or read locally, how long it takes, or what the manifest lookup does on failure — meaningful gaps for an unannotated 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?

Short and front-loaded: what it lists first, then the detail behavior. The parenthetical example list is somewhat long but doubles as keyword hints for the filter parameter, so it mostly 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return shape — it only gets partway (names plus examples; manifest fields name/description/version in detail mode). It omits whether entries include paths, sizes, or categories, and leaves the detail-parameter typing ambiguous.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description actively misdescribes the detail parameter: it says 'detail=true 时会拉该脚本的 manifest.json' (implies a boolean) while the schema declares detail as a string holding a script directory name. This could mislead an agent into passing "true" and getting nothing back. The filter explanation ('keyword such as 委托/树脂/纪行') is a modest useful addition.

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+resource: list JS scripts from the official repo's js/ section, with concrete examples (AutoCommission, AutoRefinedCondensationResin) and a real count (144 as of 2026-10-16). It is distinguishable from listing siblings like bgi_list_pathing or bgi_list_strategies, though it never explicitly contrasts with the run/install tools that consume these scripts.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before bgi_run_js or bgi_install_js, but no sentence says 'use this before running/installing a script' or when to prefer bgi_repo_index instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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