list_script_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context about scope and method: it lists projects 'accessible to the user' and uses the Drive API. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether prior authentication is required, or how pagination behaves beyond the parameter definitions.

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 follows a clear structure: one-line purpose, mechanism, Args, and Returns. It contains little fluff, though the Args section could be tightened to avoid including 'service,' which is not part of the actual input schema.

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 simple listing tool, the description covers the core information: purpose, scope, parameters, and return type. An output schema is available for return details, and the main missing piece—explicit guidance about when to use it versus sibling tools—is already accounted for in the usage dimension.

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, and it does: user_google_email, page_size, and page_token each get a meaningful explanation. One minor ambiguity is that 'service' is listed in Args but is not present in the input schema, which could confuse an agent even though it is likely an injected dependency.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'Lists Google Apps Script projects accessible to the user.' It also clarifies the underlying mechanism, 'Uses Drive API to find Apps Script files,' which distinguishes it from related single-resource tools like get_script_project.

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 usage is implied by the tool's stated purpose: use it to list the Google Apps Script projects available to the user. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over related alternatives such as get_script_project, list_deployments, or search_drive_files.

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