script_projects_get_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements (though parameters suggest OAuth or API key), rate limits, error conditions, or what format the content returns (e.g., code files, JSON). For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Get the content'), making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool definitions.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'content' entails (e.g., source code, project structure), how authentication works despite parameters suggesting it, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use in a broader context with many sibling tools.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., scriptId, versionNumber, fields). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of 'content,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like default behaviors or parameter interactions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('content of a Google Apps Script project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_projects_get' (which might get metadata) or 'update_script_content' (which modifies content), leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope within the family of script project tools.

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. With siblings like 'script_projects_get' (likely for metadata) and 'update_script_content' (for modifications), there's no indication of the appropriate context or prerequisites for retrieving content specifically, 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.