list_scripts

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds material context the agent cannot get elsewhere: the default suppresses script bodies because they routinely contain cleartext credentials, redaction is pattern-based and not a guarantee, and a script's `policy` can exceed the scheduling user's interactive permissions. Those are non-obvious, decision-relevant facts.

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?

Lead sentence delivers purpose and output fields up front; the two following notes are tightly scoped and each earns its place (a credential-exposure warning and a privilege-semantics clarification). No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations plus the credential note cover the safety profile of a read-only list call. It falls short only on the two unspecified list parameters (device, name_filter) and any note about result volume/paging.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains include_source thoroughly (default, effect, safety implication) but says nothing about `device` or `name_filter` — their accepted values, whether the filter is a pattern, or matching semantics remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the stored scripts') and goes further by enumerating the returned fields (owner, policy, run count, last start). No other script-related tool exists among the siblings, so a reader can place it instantly against the surrounding list_/get_ families.

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 gives conditional guidance for the include_source flag ('Set it to True only when you intend to read the code'), which is usage guidance at the parameter level. It never states when to reach for this tool versus another, though in practice there is no competing script-listing tool, so the omission is less costly than it would otherwise be.

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