script_projects_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 mentions OAuth authentication is handled automatically, which is useful context, but fails to describe critical behaviors like what metadata is returned, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get metadata of a Google Apps Script project') and adds one useful contextual note about authentication. There's no wasted verbiage 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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'metadata' includes, the response format, error handling, or how this differs from sibling tools. The authentication note is helpful but insufficient for a tool that likely returns structured data.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of 'scriptId' or typical use cases for 'fields'. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('metadata of a Google Apps Script project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'script_projects_get_content' or 'script_projects_versions_get', but the focus on 'metadata' provides some implicit 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'script_projects_get_content' (which retrieves content) or 'script_projects_versions_get' (which retrieves version details), leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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