List ACS scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the underlying command (`dumpscripts`) and the output fields, giving some behavioral insight. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any prerequisites like a running instance, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes the essential output details without any fluff, earning a perfect score for structure.

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?

The description adequately explains what the tool returns but omits details about the `instance` parameter and any prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is decent but not fully complete for an agent to invoke it without additional assumptions.

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 has one parameter, `instance`, but the description provides no explanation of its meaning or usage. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the purpose of `instance` (presumably the game instance ID) unclear.

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 runs `dumpscripts` and returns every script with specific fields (module, number, name, type, arg count). This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_running_scripts by emphasizing 'every script across loaded modules'.

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 enumerating all scripts, while list_running_scripts presumably covers active scripts, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for basic usage but lacks explicit guidance on choosing this over similar tools.

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