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 adds key behavioral detail ('recursively', 'all .gd scripts') beyond the schema. However, it omits return format, error handling, or hidden-file behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

One sentence, action-first, with no unnecessary words. It encodes purpose and scope efficiently, making it easy to parse.

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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and recursion behavior. It doesn't describe the return value, but for a list operation this is largely implied. Missing error details are not critical for initial selection.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds the recursive scope but does not further enrich parameter meanings; it relies on the schema, which is adequate.

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 states the specific action (list), the resource (.gd scripts), and the scope (project or subdirectory). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_script or attach_script.

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 makes the tool's usage context clear: use it when you need a recursive inventory of scripts. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous for this straightforward operation.

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