get_script_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not warn about rate limits, authorization requirements, response format, pagination, or potential errors. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about side effects or safety considerations.

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, clear sentence that is easy to parse. It does not waste words, but it is somewhat under-specified for the complexity of the tool (4 required parameters). Still, for a simple 'get' operation, the length is acceptable.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must explain the behavior and return value, but it does not. The tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema, leaving the agent without information about response structure or how metrics are returned. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns a complex metrics payload.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., scriptId, deploymentId, metricsGranularity, fields). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The 'fields' parameter is explained as a partial response selector, which is useful.

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 action ('Get metrics data') and the resource ('Google Apps Script projects'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools, none of which are metrics-focused. However, 'metrics data' is somewhat generic and does not specify the type of metrics (e.g., execution or error metrics).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or situations where this tool is preferred. Sibling tools are listed but no differentiation is offered.

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