list_scripts_by_assembly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('List'), but lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or whether it includes nested paths. The absence of such context leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core function. Every word serves a purpose, and no extraneous 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 parameter, the description adequately specifies inputs and outputs. It could optionally mention recursion depth or behavior for missing assemblies, but the current setup is largely sufficient given the low complexity.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter clearly ('Assembly name e.g. Assembly-CSharp or path to .asmdef'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description confirms 'by name or asmdef path' but adds no new semantic value.

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 explicitly states the action ('List'), the resource ('C# script paths'), and the filtering criterion ('belong to a given assembly by name or asmdef path'), distinguishing it clearly from siblings like 'list_scripts' and 'list_assemblies'.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving scripts filtered by assembly, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternative tools (e.g., find_scripts_by_content) or situations where it might be inappropriate.

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