list_script_deployments

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 states the action ('List all deployments') but doesn't add any context about what 'all deployments' entails (e.g., pagination, filtering, or return format), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions, which are critical for a tool that likely interacts with a deployment system.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of listing deployments (which may involve permissions, pagination, or filtering), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for an agent to use the tool effectively in real-world scenarios, such as understanding the response structure or handling edge cases.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info, though it could hint at implicit parameters (e.g., script ID) for a higher score.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('deployments of an Apps Script project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_script_metadata' or 'execute_script_function', which could also relate to Apps Script projects, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a script ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'get_script_metadata' or 'create_script_deployment', leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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