apps_script_get_metrics

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the metric categories returned (execution, user, failure), which is useful context, but it does not disclose aggregation behavior, time-range semantics, or error behavior for an invalid scriptId. 'Get' is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, so there is no contradiction.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words — verb first, then resource, then the three metric categories. It is appropriately sized for what it conveys and front-loads the most important 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?

Despite strong annotations, the description leaves significant gaps for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions. An agent cannot determine what deploymentId does, how granularity affects the result, or what the response looks like. The metric categories are helpful, but the description is thinner than the task requires.

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 for all three parameters but does not. Nothing explains what deploymentId filters, what WEEKLY vs DAILY granularity means for the returned data, or why scriptId is required beyond the schema's minLength:1. The phrase 'for an Apps Script project' only loosely connects to scriptId.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('execution, user and failure metrics for an Apps Script project'), and it names the distinct metric categories it returns. No sibling tool deals with metrics — siblings cover running functions, listing processes, content, versions, and deployments — so an agent can identify this tool's niche immediately without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer it over apps_script_list_processes or apps_script_list_script_processes for execution-related data, nor does it state preconditions such as whether a deployment or version must exist before metrics are available.

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