list_script_projects

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

No annotations provided, but description explains the underlying mechanism (Drive API search with specific mimeType) and the required OAuth scope. This compensates for lack of annotations, though no mention of pagination limits or performance.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information; every sentence adds value (purpose, reason for approach, alternatives, scope requirement).

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, underlying method, alternatives, and auth requirements, making it fully informative for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add per-parameter details beyond schema, but explains the overall Drive API approach, which provides context. No additional semantic value for individual parameters.

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?

Description starts with a clear verb-resource pair ('Find Apps Script projects') and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_script_project and get_script_content by stating its scope (scanning Drive vs content retrieval).

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?

Explicitly states why this tool is used (no native list endpoint in Apps Script API) and points to alternatives for content (get_script_project/get_script_content). Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is sufficient. Also notes required OAuth scope.

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