sieve_scripts_list

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the auth prerequisite (Requires alias credentials) and does not describe side effects (though listing is likely read-only), error behavior, pagination, or return format. The description is too superficial for full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the prerequisite. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant 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?

For a simple list operation, the description states the action and the authentication requirement. However, it omits details about the output (e.g., script names) and does not clarify the relationship to domain_sieve_list or sieve_script_get. Given no output schema, the description could be more informative, but it is minimally acceptable for a straightforward list 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating that credentials are required, which is already evident from the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'Sieve scripts' with the scope 'for an alias'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_sieve_list (domain scope) and sieve_script_get (single script retrieval).

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 phrase 'for an alias' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying alias-level script listing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., domain-level scripts should use domain_sieve_list), which would push it to a 5.

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