list_scripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that code content is not included and listing the returned fields, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope without contradictions.

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?

Two sentences convey the essential information without any extraneous text. The main purpose is stated first, followed by key details about the response.

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 list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and what it excludes. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for basic understanding given the simple nature of the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning or formatting details beyond what is in the schema, 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?

Clearly states the verb ('List scripts in a project'), specifies returned fields (ID, name, description, schedule type), and explicitly mentions what is not included (code content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_script or search_in_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?

Implies usage for retrieving script metadata without code, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_in_scripts or get_script. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.

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