Gmail MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'provides a direct way to check' and mentions the return type ('Dict[str, Any]: The authentication status'), which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance, or what specific authentication aspects are checked, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, context about being a 'direct way', and return value. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the return value explanation could be slightly more concise, as 'Dict[str, Any]' might be inferred from context.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has minor gaps. It explains the purpose and return value, but without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on what 'authentication status' includes (e.g., user info, expiry) to fully guide an agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check the current authentication status' with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('authentication status'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it's a 'direct way' without accessing 'auth://status resource', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other auth-related tools like 'login_tool' or 'logout'.

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 context by stating it's for checking authentication 'without having to access the auth://status resource', suggesting an alternative method. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other auth-related siblings (e.g., 'login_tool', 'logout'), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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