list_scripts

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: scriptId expires on reload/navigation/target change, and URL is the preferred selector for get/save_script_source. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Description is informative but not overly verbose. It front-loads the purpose, then usage notes, then parameter clarifications, and ends with result structure. Could be slightly more concise but overall well-organized.

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 3 parameters, annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers necessary context: result items include scoped scriptId and URL, with expiration behavior. No gaps for effective use.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions. Description adds clarity: filter is case-insensitive URL substring and does not search source text, with a reference to search_in_sources for code queries. This extra guidance justifies a 4 instead of baseline 3.

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 it discovers JavaScript loaded in the selected debugger context, specifying script types (external, inline, eval) and context scope (main frame or selected frame). It distinguishes from sibling tool search_in_sources by indicating when to use that alternative.

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?

Explicitly tells users to use select_frame first for iframe-specific work, and to use search_in_sources when they know a function name, endpoint, or code literal. Also clarifies that filter does not search source text, so users know its limitations.

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