list_precomps

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating call, so the description is not required to restate safety. Beyond that it adds almost nothing: it does not say whether disabled/muted precomps are included, what pairing means concretely, or what the result contains. The whole-script scope is the only marginal addition.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded, so it is appropriately sized for a trivial listing tool. It is arguably too terse in that terms like 'Write/Read pair' are never unpacked, but there is no wasted text to trim.

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 simple parameterless read tool this is minimally adequate: an agent knows it lists precomp pairs. Since there is no output schema, the description is the only place return shape could be described, and it leaves the result structure and ordering unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 per the scoring rules; there are no arguments whose semantics could be clarified. No penalty is warranted since there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 gives a specific verb (find/list) and a specific resource (precomp Write/Read pairs) scoped to the script, so an agent knows this enumerates precomp wiring rather than node lists. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling setup_precomp, which is the nearest alternative. Clear but undifferentiated from siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. An agent must infer that this is a read-only discovery call and guess when setup_precomp or read_comp would be the better choice. No conditions 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.