sieve_list_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds meaningful domain behavior: only one script is active at a time and that active script filters incoming mail. It implies a read-only list operation, though it does not discuss permissions, pagination, or return format.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and active-script behavior, with no wasted text. Every sentence contributes to selection or usage.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential return concept: scripts and which one is active. It stops short of describing script object structure, but that is a minor gap for this operation.

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 both accountId and accountName are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: listing Sieve scripts and identifying the active one. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sieve_get_script and sieve_activate_script by explaining that the active script is the one filtering incoming mail.

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?

It explicitly says to start here before reading or changing filters, giving clear sequencing guidance. It does not name specific alternatives by tool name, but the context is sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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