Google Workspace MCP VE

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the action ('searches' and 'checks') but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if the file is not found), or the output format. The description is too vague to adequately inform an agent about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (searching and checking access), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description should provide more guidance and transparency to be fully helpful.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('user_google_email' and 'file_name') with their types and requirements. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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: 'Searches for a file by name and checks if it has public link sharing enabled.' It specifies the verb ('searches' and 'checks'), resource ('file'), and outcome ('public link sharing enabled'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_drive_file_permissions' or 'get_drive_shareable_link', which may have overlapping functionality, preventing a score of 5.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring file access permissions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_drive_file_permissions' for broader permission checks. This lack of contextual usage information limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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