List Script Processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'recent' scope and 'user's scripts' context, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose behavioral details like pagination behavior, ordering, or filtering beyond what the schema specifies.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb 'Lists' and includes all essential information without redundancy. It wastes no words and is easy to scan.

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?

For a straightforward listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations. It doesn't explain what 'execution processes' mean in detail, but that is likely domain-standard. The only minor gap is that 'recent' is not precisely defined, but this is not critical.

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 schema describes all three parameters (page_size, script_id, user_google_email) with their types and defaults, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level information, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource 'recent execution processes for user's scripts', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_script_projects and list_versions by focusing on execution processes rather than projects or 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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving execution history, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like get_script_metrics or list_script_projects, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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