List scripts

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

Although annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial context: the required `scripts:read` scope, a concrete rate limit, and the fact that it reads stored records rather than calling a venue. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations do not provide.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, then adds auth, rate-limit, and behavioral context. The phrase 'Ten a second' slightly restates the rate limit, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 and no parameters, the description gives enough conceptual detail about what is returned: the account's scripts plus editor-enforced limits. Pagination or exact response shape is not described, but for a simple list tool this is close to complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the description creates confusion about inputs.

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 identifies the resource as the account's strategy scripts and notes that it includes editor-enforced limits. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `get_script`, but the listing purpose is still evident from the name and wording.

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 explains auth scope and rate limits but never says when to use this tool instead of `get_script` or other list tools. There is no explicit routing guidance or when-not condition.

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