script_projects_versions_list

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention that results are paginated (supported by pageSize/pageToken in the schema) or describe the response format. It also does not clarify whether the list includes version metadata only or full content details.

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: 'List the versions of a Google Apps Script project.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler words, and every word adds value. This is an example of appropriate minimalism.

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 and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate for a basic listing operation. The agent can infer pagination from the schema's pageToken parameter, but the description does not explicitly state return structure or that this tool lists all versions in a paginated manner. It is complete enough for an experienced agent but lacks additional context for a novice.

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 schema documentation covers all four parameters (fields, pageSize, scriptId, pageToken) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's text does not add any extra param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not need to since the coverage is 100%.

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 a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'versions of a Google Apps Script project', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like script_projects_versions_get (single version) and script_projects_versions_create (creating versions), since listing is a different operation.

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 only the action itself and gives no context about when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no explicit usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent stumbles in trying to decide between this and, say, script_projects_versions_get, because the description does not say 'use this to see all versions' or 'use the get tool for a specific version'.

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