Apps Script MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists 'recent execution processes,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (e.g., time range, default recency), whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, or the format of returned processes. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section with bullet-like formatting. There's no wasted text, and each part adds value. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (listing with optional filtering), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., recency definition, authentication needs) and usage guidelines. With the output schema handling return values, the description doesn't need to explain outputs, but it should provide more operational guidance to be fully adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'page_size: Number of results (default: 50)' clarifies the purpose and default value, and 'script_id: Optional filter by script ID' explains its optional filtering role. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions, providing context that helps the agent understand how to use the parameters effectively, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., script_id format).

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 tool's purpose: 'List recent execution processes for user's scripts.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('execution processes'), and scope ('recent', 'for user's scripts'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_script_projects_tool (which lists projects, not processes) and get_script_metrics_tool (which gets metrics, not processes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as list_deployments_tool, which might also involve script-related listings.

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 mentions optional filtering by script_id but doesn't specify scenarios for using this tool over other listing tools (e.g., list_script_projects_tool for projects or get_script_metrics_tool for performance data). There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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