acs_list_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds minimal transparency by specifying 'all available', but it does not disclose the return format, potential side effects (though listing implies read-only), or any operational prerequisites like an active ACS connection.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential operation without unnecessary words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but functional. However, it lacks detail on what the returned data looks like (e.g., array of script names or IDs) and any limitations (e.g., only lists scripts on the current device). It is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the schema (empty) is fully documented as having no parameters.

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 available TR-069 scripts' using a specific verb ('list') and a specific resource ('TR-069 scripts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual scripts, such as get_script, create_script, delete_script, and run_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 implies usage (when you need to enumerate available scripts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like acs_get_script or acs_find_device. No when-not scenarios or alternative tool mentions are included.

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