Apps Script MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'Retrieve' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'complete project details' includes beyond 'all source files'. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The structure is clear, though the parameter explanation could be integrated more smoothly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does and documents the parameter, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds the parameter 'script_id' with a brief explanation ('The script project ID'). This provides basic semantics beyond the bare schema. However, with only 1 parameter documented out of 1 (100% coverage by description), and no details on format or constraints, it meets the baseline for minimal viable 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('complete project details including all source files'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_script_content_tool' or 'get_script_metrics_tool', which appear to retrieve different aspects of script projects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_script_projects_tool' for listing projects or 'get_script_content_tool' for specific content retrieval, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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