list_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the operation as a listing with source map info, but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or performance implications. The behavior is predictable for a debugger tool, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of two sentences, with the primary purpose stated immediately. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description could provide more detail about what information is returned for each script (e.g., script ID, URL, source map status). It mentions source map information but omits other common fields, leaving the return format somewhat underspecified.

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 explains both parameters. The description does not add any additional context or nuance beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it lists all scripts in the debugging session, specifying that source map information is included where available. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_script_source (retrieves a single script's source) and get_original_location (maps locations), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for viewing all loaded scripts, likely to obtain script IDs for use with other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide guidance on prerequisites like an active debugging session.

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