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. It states the tool lists items but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (e.g., how to handle multiple pages beyond the default page_size), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth). The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated, but overall it's adequate with clear room for improvement.

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. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining each parameter: 'user_google_email' as the user's email, 'folder_id' with its default and purpose, and 'page_size' with its default and role. This clarifies beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., email validation).

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: 'List files and folders in a Drive folder.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('files and folders in a Drive folder'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_drive_files_tool' or 'get_drive_file_content_tool', which prevents a perfect score.

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_drive_files_tool' for broader searches or 'get_drive_file_content_tool' for file details, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication status). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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