List Script Projects

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that it uses Drive API, which provides implementation context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or how many projects may be returned. The description adds some value beyond annotations but is limited.

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 two sentences long, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds implementation detail. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete. It mentions the underlying API and accessibility scope. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the scope (only Google Apps Script projects, not other Drive files) and provide more guidance on when to use this over other listing tools, but overall it is adequate.

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%, and the description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies as the description does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 that the tool lists Google Apps Script projects accessible to the user, using Drive API. The title and description are aligned, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_script_project (single project) and create/delete script projects.

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 mentions using Drive API to find Apps Script files, implying it is for listing script-specific items, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_drive_items or search_drive_files. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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