Google Workspace MCP VE

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. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only diagnostic tool ('return runtime/source information', 'verify'), implying no destructive operations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, diagnostic context, temporary nature, and specific verification goal. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a diagnostic tool with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides good contextual completeness for its purpose. It clearly explains why and when to use this tool versus operational siblings. The main gap is the unexplained required parameter, but otherwise the description adequately covers the tool's role in the system.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description provides no information about the 'user_google_email' parameter - it doesn't explain why this email is required, what role it plays in the diagnostic process, or how it affects the returned information. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 with specific verbs ('return runtime/source information') and resource ('for diagnosing stale MCP server instances'). It explicitly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from all sibling tools, which are operational Google Workspace tools, making its purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it specifies when to use ('for diagnosing stale MCP server instances'), states its temporary nature ('temporary diagnostic tool'), and clarifies the intended verification purpose ('verify which code checkout the running MCP server has loaded'). This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus the operational sibling tools.

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