list_script_processes

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. It describes the listing behavior but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. It also omits authentication requirements or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 concise: a brief header followed by a compact list of arguments. Every sentence is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and parameters adequately, including pagination. However, it lacks details on the output format (beyond 'summary'), error handling, and the expected format of filter JSONs. Since an output schema exists, return value detail is not required, but completeness is still moderate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by listing and explaining each parameter, including required/optional status, default values, and purpose of filter JSONs. It compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists Apps Script processes and distinguishes between script-specific and user-wide listing based on the script_id parameter. It is specific and differentiated from sibling tools, none of which list script processes.

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 explains when to use script-specific vs user-wide listing by indicating the role of script_id. It provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives since no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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