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. It discloses that it searches files and folders, supports query operators, and returns a maximum number of files (with pagination implied by 'page_size'). However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the search is scoped to the user's Drive. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a search tool.

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. The 'Args:' section efficiently documents parameters with examples. However, the query examples could be slightly more concise, and the structure is clear but not perfectly streamlined.

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 (search with query operators), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and basic behavior. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or result format, which could be useful 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 description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all three parameters: 'user_google_email' specifies the user's Google email, 'query' explains search query string with examples of Drive operators, and 'page_size' defines the maximum number of files and default value. This adds significant meaning 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 specific action ('Search for files and folders') and resource ('in Google Drive'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_drive_items_tool' (which likely lists without search) and 'search_docs_tool' (which searches Docs specifically). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that is not tautological.

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 for searching Drive files/folders with query operators, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_drive_items_tool' or 'search_docs_tool'. It provides context for search functionality but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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