script_projects_versions_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements (OAuth vs API key), rate limits, error conditions, or what specific version information is returned. For a tool with 10 parameters including authentication options, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero wasted language. For a tool with this level of schema documentation, the concise approach is appropriate and efficient.

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 (10 parameters including authentication options), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what information is returned about script versions, how authentication works, error handling, or how this differs from related tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with authentication-sensitive operations, more contextual information is needed to guide proper usage.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain the relationship between required parameters (scriptId, versionNumber) and optional ones, or provide guidance on which authentication method to use. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added beyond the comprehensive schema.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a version of a Google Apps Script project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a retrieval operation for specific versions rather than general project information or list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_projects_get' or 'script_projects_versions_list', which would require more specific language about retrieving individual version details versus general project info or listing multiple 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. With multiple sibling tools including 'script_projects_get', 'script_projects_versions_list', and 'script_projects_get_content', there's no indication whether this tool retrieves metadata, content, or other version-specific details. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the crowded tool namespace.

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