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. 'Get a form' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether authentication is needed, if there are rate limits, what the output includes, or any side effects. The description is too vague to inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic read implication.

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 extremely concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's overly terse to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details. While it earns points for brevity, the minimalism compromises clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'get' entails or provide context for usage, relying solely on structured fields. Without annotations and with a vague description, it fails to offer sufficient guidance for effective tool invocation.

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 parameter documentation. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without needing additional description.

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 'Get a form' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'get' means (retrieve metadata, content, structure?) or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_form_response' or 'get_presentation'. While the verb 'get' suggests retrieval, the description lacks the necessary detail to make the purpose clear and differentiated.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for retrieving form details versus responses. Given sibling tools like 'get_form_response' and 'batch_update_form', the absence of usage guidance leaves the agent uncertain about appropriate selection.

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