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. It states 'gets details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned details. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 action, though it could be more informative. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification.

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), 100% schema coverage for inputs, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'details' include, how it relates to siblings like 'list_versions', or any behavioral nuances, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. 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 'Gets details of a specific version' states the action ('gets') and resource ('version'), but it's vague about what 'details' entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_versions' or 'get_script_project'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_versions' or 'get_script_project'. The description implies retrieval of a specific version but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.

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