list_scripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format (script ID, URL, source map info) and implies a read-only operation by using 'Lists', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It adds some context but is not comprehensive for a tool with no 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (simple list operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks parameter details and some behavioral aspects like error cases, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the 'url_filter' parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is low, the baseline is lower, but the description does not address the parameter, resulting in a minimal score.

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 specific action ('Lists all JavaScript scripts loaded in the current page') and resource ('JavaScript scripts'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_breakpoints or list_network_requests. It explicitly mentions what information is returned (script ID, URL, source map), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to find scripts before setting breakpoints or searching'), linking it to specific workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, such as get_script_source for detailed script content.

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