Apps Script MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Supports Google Docs (-> text), Sheets (-> CSV), Slides (-> text), and text files' which adds useful context about output format conversions. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though 'user_google_email' parameter hints at this), rate limits, file size limitations, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a content retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by supported file types, then parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the second adds important format conversion context, and the third documents parameters. No wasted words, well front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 moderate complexity (content retrieval with format conversions), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, supported file types, and parameter semantics. The main gap is insufficient behavioral context (authentication, limitations, error handling), but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values. For a read operation, this is adequate though not comprehensive.

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 description explicitly documents both parameters in the 'Args:' section, providing clear semantic meaning: 'user_google_email: The user's Google email address' and 'file_id: The Drive file ID'. With 0% schema description coverage (schema has no descriptions), this fully compensates by adding essential parameter context that the schema lacks. The parameter documentation is complete and meaningful for both required 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: 'Get the content of a Google Drive file' with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Google Drive file content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_doc_content_tool' and 'get_sheet_values_tool' by mentioning broader file type support (Docs, Sheets, Slides, text files). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_drive_items_tool' which lists metadata rather than content.

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 specifying supported file types (Google Docs, Sheets, Slides, text files), suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_doc_content_tool' or 'get_sheet_values_tool', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tool list shows specialized content tools, but no comparison is made.

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