Get Script Project

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it includes 'all source files', which gives some scope context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'complete' entails beyond the output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It immediately states the verb and resource, earning its place without fluff. This is ideal conciseness.

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 rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple getter tool. It communicates the essential scope ('complete project details including all source files') and does not need to explain return values or safety, as those are covered by structured fields.

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 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's field labels. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 'Retrieves' and the resource 'complete project details including all source files', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_script_projects (which lists projects) and get_script_content (which focuses on content). The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives, use cases, or exclusion criteria. The description merely states what it does without contextualizing when the agent should choose it.

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