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 the action ('List') but doesn't describe traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page_token' in schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List contact groups') and includes a clarifying parenthetical ('labels'), making it appropriately sized and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 low complexity (list operation), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth), which is a gap since no annotations are provided to compensate.

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 beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline score when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('List') and resource ('contact groups (labels)'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_contact_group' (which retrieves a specific group) or 'manage_contact_group' (which modifies groups), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 (e.g., authentication), contrast with 'list_contacts' (which lists individual contacts), or specify scenarios where listing groups is appropriate, offering no usage context.

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