Apps Script MCP

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 mentions pagination and default values, which is helpful, but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the structure of returned data. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with 'Args:' could be slightly more integrated. It avoids redundancy and stays focused on essential information.

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 low complexity (list operation with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately, though it could improve by adding usage guidelines and more behavioral context to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 clearly explains both parameters: 'page_size' as 'Number of results per page (default: 50)' and 'page_token' as 'Token for pagination (optional)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on pagination mechanics (e.g., how to obtain the token).

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Google Apps Script projects accessible to the user'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_script_project_tool' (singular retrieval) and 'list_script_processes_tool' (different resource type), avoiding tautology.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), differentiate from similar tools like 'list_spreadsheets_tool' or 'list_drive_items_tool', or specify scenarios for its use, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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