Google Workspace MCP VE

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 states the tool retrieves details and members, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination behavior (e.g., related to 'max_members'). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance. This exemplifies good conciseness and structure.

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 there is an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a tool that likely involves data retrieval (implying read-only behavior), the description should ideally mention safety or constraints. It adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks depth for a tool with potential complexity in member retrieval.

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, with clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions, constraints, or provide examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate with additional semantic insights.

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: 'Get details of a specific contact group including its members.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('contact group'), and mentions the scope ('including its members'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contact_groups' or 'get_contact', which are present in the sibling list, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus those alternatives.

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 sibling tools such as 'list_contact_groups' (for listing groups) or 'get_contact' (for individual contacts), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of guidance could lead to confusion in tool selection.

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