Get Script Content

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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description's 'Retrieves' aligns with these without contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it doesn't clarify what kind of content is returned (source code, file size limits, raw vs rendered), whether the file must belong to the given script project, or if authentication flows through user_google_email. Since annotations carry the burden and no contradiction exists, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single tight sentence of eleven words, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. There is zero filler, and every word contributes to meaning. This is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 (so return format is defined elsewhere), annotations fully declare the safety semantics, and the input schema covers all parameters at 100%, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly scope the tool to Apps Script project files or note that file_name refers to files within the script project. For a simple read-only tool with rich structured context, this is adequate.

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 100%, with all three parameters (user_google_email, script_id, file_name) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and no compensation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Retrieves content of a specific file within a project') that naturally distinguishes it from siblings like get_script_project (metadata), list_script_projects (listing), update_script_content (mutation), and run_script_function (execution). It stops short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly state this concerns Apps Script source files (e.g., .gs/.html), which the agent must infer from the tool name and script_id parameter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given a large sibling set including get_script_project, get_drive_file_content, get_doc_content, and run_script_function, the description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for selection. An agent receives zero direction on choosing this over similar content-retrieval tools.

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