list_script_projects

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the auth requirement (Drive scope, OAuth re-run) and the return value (scriptId and name), which adds useful context. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like pagination behavior, result ordering, or potential errors beyond scope issues.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value (purpose, return value, use case, auth note). 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the description covers the core purpose, return values, a concrete use case, and auth prerequisites. The schema fills in parameter details. The only missing element might be an explicit note about pagination or defaults, but the schema already provides those, so the description is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (pageSize, pageToken, nameContains) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 or searches the user's Google Apps Script projects, specifies the return values (scriptId and name), and distinguishes it as the discovery tool for scriptIds. This is a specific verb+resource that stands apart from sibling tools.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('Use this to discover a scriptId when you don't already have one') and mentions the required Drive scope with OAuth re-run. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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