Gmail MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's actions (revoking token, clearing credentials) and return type (success/error message), which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., impact on other tools), error conditions, or rate limits, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 core action in the first sentence and includes a concise 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on behavioral aspects like error handling, but it suffices for basic understanding.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is assigned as it effectively handles the lack of parameters without introducing confusion.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('log out', 'revoking', 'clearing') and resources ('access token', 'stored credentials'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like login_tool or check_auth_status. It goes beyond a tautology by detailing the actions involved in logging out.

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 in the context of ending a session or authentication state, which is clear from the action described. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no guidance on prerequisites like being logged in first) or any exclusions, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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