get_script_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-style operation through 'Gets' and 'Returns' and explains the return format as a formatted string, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then uses a compact Args/Returns structure for clarity. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema and includes a non-schema parameter, but the overall text remains short, scannable, and free of unnecessary prose.

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 metrics-retrieval tool, the description covers the key dimensions: what metrics are returned, granularity options, and the return type. It does not explain authentication prerequisites or how to find the script_id, but those are reasonably inferable from the schema and sibling tools like list_script_projects.

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 provides useful allowed values for metrics_granularity ('DAILY' or 'WEEKLY') and hints that service is injected. However, the explanations for user_google_email and script_id largely restate their names, and the 'service' arg is not part of the input schema, which could confuse an agent about what to actually provide.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Gets execution metrics for a script project') and lists the concrete metric types returned: active users, total executions, and failed executions. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from script lifecycle tools like list_script_projects and run_script_function, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar-sounding list_script_processes.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can reasonably infer this tool is for retrieving execution analytics for a script project. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as list_script_processes when process-level details are needed instead.

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