startup_script_list_boot_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the listing action and return type. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it returns user-specific or all boot scripts, or whether pagination or filtering exists. The verb 'List' implies read-only, but the description adds little beyond that.

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-loaded, but it is redundant: the 'Returns: List of boot startup scripts' line essentially repeats the first sentence. The second line does not earn its place, so while there is no bloat, the structure is not maximally effective.

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 zero-parameter list operation with an output schema, the basic call context is present and easy to understand. However, the presence of closely related sibling list tools makes the missing guidance about which script category this covers a meaningful gap. An agent could call the wrong sibling without clarification.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. According to the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and no param-related gap exists.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List boot startup scripts.' It names a specific resource type ('boot startup scripts') that helps distinguish it from sibling tools like startup_script_list_startup_scripts and startup_script_list_pxe_scripts. However, it does not explain what distinguishes a boot startup script from another startup script, so the differentiation is only implicit in the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as startup_script_list_startup_scripts or startup_script_list_pxe_scripts. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the right choice from names alone.

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