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 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the details are returned in (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits or error conditions. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details of a specific task list'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from additional 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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema description coverage, the description is minimally complete for a simple retrieval tool. However, with no annotations and missing usage guidelines, it leaves gaps in behavioral and contextual understanding that could hinder effective tool selection.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('user_google_email' and 'task_list_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining where to find the task_list_id or how the email address is used. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('task list'), specifying it retrieves details of a specific task list. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_task_lists' or 'get_task', which handle listing multiple task lists or retrieving individual tasks respectively.

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 like 'list_task_lists' for listing all task lists or 'get_task' for retrieving individual tasks. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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