list_client_scripts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing the prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) beyond annotations. No contradiction exists. It could further detail pagination or response format, but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 conveys the purpose and a key prerequisite with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., a list of client script objects). It only mentions a prerequisite. For a list tool with multiple parameters, this is a significant gap in completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'client scripts', which is specific. It also mentions a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) adding clarity. Among siblings like get_client_script, create_client_script, and update_client_script, this tool is well-distinguished.

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 a clear prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which is a key usage guideline. It does not explicitly compare to other list tools, but the prerequisite serves as a condition for when to use. More explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance could elevate the score.

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