script_projects_versions_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a version', which adds no context beyond the tool name itself. It does not mention read-only behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or what response format to expect, leaving the agent to infer safety and side effects.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary details are included.

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 simplicity of the operation (a single get) and the rich schema documentation, the description is minimally viable. However, no output schema exists and the description does not explain what a 'version' entails or any contextual constraints (e.g., that version numbers are sequential), leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (scriptId, versionNumber, fields), so the schema already explains their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'a version of a Google Apps Script project', which identifies the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like script_projects_versions_list, though the singular 'a version' implies a specific retrieval rather than listing all versions.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives such as script_projects_versions_list or script_projects_get_content. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, which is insufficient per the rubric.

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