Get script collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: packageId is required despite being optional in the schema, and global listing is unsupported. It does not cover response or pagination details, but for a read-only list tool this is reasonable.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the key usage constraint. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only list operation, but with no output schema and six underdocumented parameters, it leaves pagination semantics, return shape, and the relationship to search_script_collections unaddressed. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it with full confidence.

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?

With 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only explains packageId. The top, skip, filter, select, and orderby parameters are left entirely to inference from their names.

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 the action ('Get script collections') and the scope ('from a package'), which distinguishes it from a generic list-all tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_script_collections, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear usage context: you must supply a packageId and listing all directly is not supported. It does not name the alternative search_script_collections or state when to prefer it, so it is not fully explicit.

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