read_project_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses return format (flat array of {target, scriptName, code, lineCount}), sort order (scene-order), empty-skip behavior, soft byte cap, truncation marker, and refinement options. However, there is a discrepancy: description states default 50000 for the soft cap while the schema says maxBytes default 200000, which could confuse an agent. This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs a lot of useful detail into three sentences, but the default cap discrepancy and slight overloading (mentioning both 50000 and truncation) could be streamlined. Still, each sentence yields high value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return format, sort order, truncation behavior, and usage scenarios. It is nearly complete, but the default cap mismatch with the schema and the omission of explicit target default (though schema has it) leave minor gaps. Overall, it is well-developed for a complex tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context about when to use refinements (e.g., 'refine via cellName or targets') and mentions the default skip-empty behavior, but it largely echoes the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Dump every script in the project (cell scripts + object scripts, all tabs) in one call.' It clearly differentiates from search_scripts by stating when to use this tool (whole-project audits, refactors, finding wired places) versus when to use search_scripts (only matching lines).

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this for whole-project audits, refactors, or "find every place X is wired" questions where you need the surrounding code, not just matching lines (use search_scripts when you only need matching lines).' It also suggests refining via cellName or targets, giving clear context for when to use alternatives.

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