script_projects_get_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but only says 'Get the content'. It does not describe whether the operation is read-only in terms of side effects, requires any special auth, what happens if the script ID is invalid, or the structure of the returned content. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but no explicit safety or behavioral details are given.

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, grammatically complete sentence that clearly states the tool's action. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter and all parameters documented in the schema. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the returned content looks like (e.g., file list, JSON structure), which could leave an agent uncertain about the response format. The description meets the minimum need but lacks some contextual richness.

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 each parameter (scriptId, versionNumber, fields) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'content of a Google Apps Script project', making its primary function clear. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like script_projects_get (which likely fetches metadata) via the word 'content', but does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as script_projects_get or update_script_content, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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