List currently-running scripts

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: requires the getrunningscripts capability, degrades with a clear error otherwise, and output is capped at 300 scripts with a truncated flag. It also lists the return fields, which the agent would otherwise not know. Loses a point only because it doesn't explain what happens at the cap boundary or ordering.

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 first two sentences are well front-loaded and earn their place. But the trailing meta block ('Phase: orchestrate; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only. Requires: active-client. Produces: bounded-candidates, operation-receipt. Safety: read-only.') largely duplicates the annotations, and the closing 'On failure: inspect tool-schema...' is generic boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (name, class, path, location, inTree), plus the truncation cap and the capability requirement. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only failure semantics beyond 'clear error' are thin.

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% for the single threadContext parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'Signature: { threadContext: number? }' merely restates that, adding no semantics beyond the schema — baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List every script that is currently executing') and enumerates the scope that distinguishes it — nil-parented, detached, Actor-hosted, CoreGui — plus the fields returned. An agent can tell it apart from find-hidden-scripts or list-script-actors without opening a schema.

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 implies when to reach for it ('surfaces active anti-detection / obfuscated logic that is running but hidden from the Explorer'), which is useful context. However, it never names an alternative sibling (find-hidden-scripts, find-detached-instances, get-nil-instances, list-script-actors) or states when this tool is the wrong choice versus those overlapping ones.

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