fm_get_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's paginated, sorted, filtered, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and lacks context about what 'all scripts' entails or any limitations.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the key information (retrieving all scripts) and has no wasted words, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate for a basic list operation but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure) or any behavioral details, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for having no parameters to document.

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 action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('データベース内のすべてのスクリプト一覧' - list of all scripts in the database). It's specific about what it retrieves (all scripts), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like fm_get_layouts or fm_get_layout_metadata, which handle different resource types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing authentication), nor does it compare with siblings like fm_global_search_data or fm_find_records that might retrieve different data. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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