List Script Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that it uses the Drive API to find Apps Script files, which is a useful implementation detail. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or whether it returns only projects the user owns or all accessible projects. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, containing only two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Lists Google Apps Script projects accessible to the user'), and the second adds relevant implementation context ('Uses Drive API to find Apps Script files'). Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 is simple: a list operation with well-specified schema and annotations. The description confirms the scope (accessible to the user) and the underlying method (Drive API). The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The only minor gap is not mentioning that this may only return projects with Drive visibility, but that is covered by 'accessible to the user.' Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (page_size, page_token, user_google_email) beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify how page_size interacts with results or what page_token refers to. The schema fully documents parameter names and defaults, so no deduction is warranted.

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 'Lists Google Apps Script projects accessible to the user.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_script_project (which fetches a single project) and list_deployments (which lists deployments). The mention of 'Drive API' further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 implies usage when you need to enumerate all Apps Script projects visible to the user, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'For a specific project, use get_script_project' or 'For scripts that are running, use list_script_processes.' This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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