List Script Processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the vague qualifier 'recent' and does not clarify what timeframe that implies, whether processes include running vs. completed ones, or how pagination behaves. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action and resource, though its brevity contributes to the lack of usage and behavioral context. Strong on conciseness, slightly weak on completeness.

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?

For a list operation with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly enough. However, it does not define what qualifies as a 'process', what 'recent' means, or how this relates to get_script_metrics. These gaps keep it from being fully self-sufficient.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description's phrase 'user's scripts' loosely reflects user_google_email but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Lists') and a specific resource ('recent execution processes for user's scripts'). It is clearly distinguishable from obvious siblings like list_script_projects and run_script_function, though it does not explicitly separate itself from get_script_metrics, which could also relate to executions. Overall the core purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_script_metrics or list_script_projects. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer the correct context from the name and schema alone.

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