list_test_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies the tool is a listing operation scoped to specific directories, which suggests read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state that nothing is executed or modified, nor what 'available' means if scripts are missing.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The verb and target are front-loaded, and the directory scope is stated immediately after the action.

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?

For a parameterless list tool, the description covers what the tool lists and where. It lacks an explicit note about return format or how it relates to sibling tools, but given the low complexity and absent output schema, the description is nearly complete for safe invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate for this tool.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('test scripts') with explicit scope ('scripts/ and scripts/examples/'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_scripts or run_test_script. The purpose is obvious and 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 use case is implied: the agent should call this to discover available test scripts before running or inspecting them. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_scripts, run_test_script, or execute_script, so the when-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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