Apps Script MCP

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. While it mentions the tool lists spreadsheets with optional filtering and pagination, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (though implied by the user_google_email parameter), rate limits, whether it's read-only, what happens with invalid queries, or the format of returned results.

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. The structure is front-loaded with the main functionality, though the Args section could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as a separate block.

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 an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description covers the basic functionality adequately. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, and how it differs from similar sibling tools.

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 provides basic parameter information in the Args section, explaining what each parameter represents. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description doesn't fully compensate - it lacks details about parameter formats (e.g., email validation), query syntax, or page_size constraints. The baseline is 3 since the Args section adds some value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Google Sheets spreadsheets in Drive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_drive_items_tool' or 'search_drive_files_tool', which could also list files including spreadsheets.

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. With sibling tools like 'list_drive_items_tool' and 'search_drive_files_tool' available, there's no indication whether this tool is specifically for spreadsheets only, whether it has different filtering capabilities, or when one should be preferred over another.

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