Apps Script MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify what 'content' includes (e.g., text, formatting, images), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. It mentions two required parameters but doesn't explain their behavioral significance (e.g., why both email and document ID are needed).

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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It uses a simple two-part structure (purpose + args) without unnecessary elaboration. However, the 'Args:' section could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block, and there's room to make it more front-loaded by emphasizing key constraints earlier.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage (0%), the description does a minimal job. It states the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, error handling) and usage guidance. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotation support, this leaves the agent with incomplete operational understanding despite the output schema.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by naming and briefly describing the two parameters ('user_google_email: The user's Google email address' and 'document_id: The document ID'), which helps understand what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., email validation, document ID structure) or explain why both are required, leaving gaps.

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: 'Get the content of a Google Doc.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Google Doc content'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_drive_file_content_tool' or 'get_script_content_tool' that also retrieve content from different Google services.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_docs_tool' for finding documents first or 'modify_doc_text_tool' for editing content. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or when this tool is appropriate versus other content retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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