Get Script Version

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

The description adds 'immutable version snapshots' and notes that 'get' requires version_number, which are useful behavioral details. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the read-only safety profile. However, it does not explain operational behaviors like authentication context or error responses, though these are partially mitigated by the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a single opening sentence stating purpose followed by a bulleted list of the two actions. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundant wording.

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?

The tool has an output schema and simple semantics, so return values are covered elsewhere. Yet with 0% schema coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It adequately covers action and version_number but leaves user_google_email and script_id under-specified, creating some ambiguity for an unfamiliar agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the two modes of the action parameter and the necessity of version_number for 'get'. It does not explain the role of user_google_email or script_id beyond the phrase 'script project', leaving two of four parameters with vague semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('List or retrieve') and resource ('immutable version snapshots of a script project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_script_version and list_script_deployments. The action parameter variants make the purpose concrete 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?

It provides internal usage guidance for the two action modes ('list' and 'get', the latter requiring version_number), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as manage_script_version. The differentiation from siblings is implied by the noun 'version' rather than explicitly spelled out.

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