get_script_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves metadata and all file contents with a 200-char preview, implying a read-only operation. It mentions readonly OAuth scope. While it doesn't explicitly state no side effects, the 'Retrieve' verb and scope make it clear. Slight omission of explicit non-modification statement prevents a 5.

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 three sentences: first sentence states purpose, second adds detail on output, third gives alternatives and scope. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely details metadata fields and file content format), the description's mention of 'metadata and all file contents' with a preview length is sufficient. It also includes required OAuth scope. For a read-only tool with two straightforward parameters, the description is complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing script_id usage ('from list_script_projects or a script URL'), which goes beyond the schema description. This enhances understanding of how to obtain the parameter value.

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 'Retrieve an Apps Script project's metadata and all file contents' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools get_script_content and update_script_content by noting the 200-char preview and directing to alternatives for full content or writing.

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 explicitly directs to get_script_content for full file content and update_script_content for writing, providing clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives. It also mentions required OAuth scope. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the alternatives are well stated.

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