get_script_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a retrieval operation returning a formatted string of project details and file contents, implying a read-only action. However, it does not address potential cost, size, auth needs, or what happens if the project is missing.

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 with Args and Returns sections. It has no redundant fluff, though listing 'service' as an arg despite it being absent from the schema is a minor structural inconsistency.

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 this is a simple get-by-ID operation with only two required params and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It clearly states the return format. Missing context includes when to prefer this over sibling tools and any access prerequisites.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the description provides the only semantics. It defines user_google_email and script_id in plain language, and notes that service is an injected client. The extra 'service' arg is not in the schema, which could confuse invocation, but it is labeled as injected.

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 the action and resource: 'Retrieves complete project details including all source files.' The phrase 'complete project details' and 'all source files' helps distinguish this from related siblings like list_script_projects or get_script_content, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a script_id from list_script_projects, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like get_script_content or list_script_projects.

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