gws-doc

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 indicates 'reformatting' which implies mutation, but does not clarify whether it modifies documents in place, creates new ones, what side effects occur, or any permission requirements. The behavior is under-disclosed for a tool that can format/write.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, but the description remains vague about how the target document is selected and what the exact output or return format is. It lists formatting features but does not fully explain the tool's operational scope, leaving gaps in contextual completeness.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters. Baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies the tool as reading and formatting Google Docs via the gws CLI, with examples like heading styles, bold text, and structured content. It is specific about the action and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like build_rich_doc or gws-richdoc, so it misses full differentiation.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Use when reading a Google Doc's content, or creating/reformatting a Google Doc with proper heading styles, bold text, or structured content.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools explicitly.

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