Google Workspace MCP VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains the different return behaviors in stdio vs HTTP modes, mentions the temporary URL validity period (1 hour), and notes that it may re-fetch message metadata. This goes beyond basic functionality to describe implementation details.

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 structured with three focused sentences: the core functionality, the different return behaviors by mode, and an implementation detail. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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's an output schema (which handles return value documentation), no annotations, and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, behavioral details, and mode-specific behaviors without needing to repeat what's already documented elsewhere.

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, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Downloads an email attachment and saves it to local disk') and resource ('email attachment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_gmail_message_content' or 'download_chat_attachment' which handle different resources or operations.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for downloading email attachments) and distinguishes it from other Gmail-related tools like 'get_gmail_message_content' or 'get_gmail_messages_content_batch' that handle message content rather than attachments. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives.

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