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. It states the tool lists permissions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The parameter explanations are brief and directly relevant. There's no unnecessary verbosity, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited by missing operational details.

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 basic semantics for both parameters ('user_google_email' and 'file_id'), explaining what they represent. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., email validation, ID structure) or usage context (e.g., why the user email is needed). This partial compensation meets the baseline for low coverage but doesn't fully address the 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: 'List all permissions on a file or folder.' This specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('permissions on a file or folder'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'share_drive_file_tool' or 'remove_drive_permission_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 'share_drive_file_tool' or 'remove_drive_permission_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only usage hint is implicit from the parameter descriptions, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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