apps_script_get_project

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

Annotations already mark the call as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., return shape or side effects) but does not contradict the annotations.

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, complete sentence with no filler. The key action and object are front-loaded, making the description maximally concise.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what metadata is returned; 'metadata' is vague. There is also no information about auth prerequisites or edge cases, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool called by an agent.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the param name scriptId. While minLength is the only constraint, the description does not explain what the scriptId represents or how to obtain it.

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 and resource: 'Get Apps Script project metadata' clearly identifies the operation. It is not a tautology, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apps_script_get_content or apps_script_get_metrics.

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 provided for when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as apps_script_get_content or drive_list_apps_script_projects. The agent is left to infer the appropriate selection from the tool name alone.

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