List project scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does add useful behavioral context by explaining the difference between executionSupported and executionEnabled, including the kill switch. The read-only nature is reasonably clear from 'List', though it is not explicitly stated.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the second sentence defines the two execution flags. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The output schema likely covers return shape, and the description explains the two boolean fields well. However, the project parameter remains underspecified, and there is no explicit connection to run_script for the agent to understand the full workflow context.

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%, and the only required parameter 'project' is not explained. The description says 'for this project' but does not clarify whether the value should be a name, ID, or path, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action and resource: list package.json scripts and report execution support for the project. It distinguishes itself from the sibling run_script tool by describing listing and capability reporting rather than execution.

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 implies this is a pre-flight inspection tool for script execution, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus run_script or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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