get_script_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets metadata', implying a read operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic read.

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 extremely concise at four sentences, with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without any fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects) and that an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return type. It is missing usage guidelines, but otherwise 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes both parameters: 'user_google_email: The user's Google email address. Required.' and 'script_id: The Apps Script project ID.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and required fields, but it lacks details like format or how to obtain the script ID.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get metadata for an Apps Script project.' The verb 'get' and resource 'metadata' are specific. There are sibling tools like get_script_content, get_script_metrics, and list_script_projects, which this description helps distinguish by specifying 'metadata'.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like get_script_content or list_script_projects. It simply states what it does without context for selection.

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