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 full burden. It states the tool retrieves content but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (implied by 'user_google_email'), rate limits, error conditions, or what 'content' means (e.g., raw text, metadata). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, and context.

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 (per context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and three required parameters, it lacks completeness in behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors) and sibling differentiation. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of 'script_id', what constitutes a valid 'file_name'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Retrieves content') and resource ('a specific file within a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_doc_content' or 'get_drive_file_content' in the sibling list, which would require more specificity about script projects versus other file types.

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. With siblings like 'get_doc_content' and 'get_drive_file_content' available, there's no indication whether this is for Google Apps Script files specifically or general project files, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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