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 describes the operation ('Walks the document body') and output format ('returns each chip's type, position, and properties'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, while the second explains the method and output format. There's no wasted language or redundancy.

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 an output schema exists (which presumably describes the return format), the description provides sufficient context for this extraction tool. It clearly explains what the tool does, how it operates, and what information it returns. For a read-oriented extraction tool with output schema support, this description is reasonably complete.

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 50% (only document_id has a description). The description doesn't explicitly mention either parameter, but the context implies the need for a document identifier. It doesn't explain why 'user_google_email' is required or what it's used for. However, with only 2 parameters and the tool's purpose being relatively straightforward, the description provides adequate context for understanding what inputs are needed.

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 ('Extract all smart chips'), identifies the resource ('from a document'), and specifies what smart chips are ('person mentions, file/rich links'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_doc_content' or 'get_doc_as_markdown' by focusing specifically on smart chip extraction rather than general content retrieval.

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 context by specifying what the tool extracts, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare with similar tools like 'inspect_doc_structure' or 'get_doc_content' that might provide overlapping functionality.

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