action1_list_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool is read-only in that it cannot execute scripts, and the intended audit use case implies no side effects. It does not mention pagination or other behavioral details, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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 main action, and every sentence contributes value. No redundant information is present.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides the necessary core purpose, usage context, and a critical limitation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, with the schema already describing 'limit' as 'max scripts to return'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool lists scripts available in the tenant, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from execution actions by explicitly noting it cannot execute them, which differentiates it from potential sibling tools like automation execution.

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 provides a clear usage context ('auditing what automation could run') and a when-not-to-use indication ('This tool cannot execute them'). However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, though none are present among siblings for executing scripts.

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