apps_script_list_script_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only scope ('for one script') and a filter option, providing no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior or result limits.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the action and scope before the filter mention, with no filler. It could include a pointer to the sibling tool, but as a concise purpose statement it is efficient.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this is incomplete: the API filter syntax is not specified, pagination semantics are unstated, and the difference from apps_script_list_processes is left implicit.

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 but only hints at 'optional API filter syntax' for scriptProcessFilter. maxPages, pageSize, and scriptId receive no explanation beyond their names and schema constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('executions for one script'), and the 'one script' scope distinguishes it from the broader apps_script_list_processes sibling. The 'optional API filter syntax' further identifies a distinguishing capability of this tool.

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 statement of when to use this tool over apps_script_list_processes or how the optional filter relates to other listing tools. The only usage hint is 'optional API filter syntax,' which is too vague to route an agent to the correct alternative.

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