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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Lists all deployments' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'all' means in terms of scope. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 values), 100% parameter coverage in the input schema, and this is a relatively simple read operation, the description is reasonably complete. However, the lack of behavioral context (especially with no annotations) and usage guidelines prevents a perfect score for this listing tool.

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, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional context about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., explaining why both user_google_email and script_id are required). This meets the baseline for 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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('deployments for a script project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_script_projects' or 'list_versions', which would require mentioning what distinguishes deployments from other script-related listings.

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, context for deployment listing, or compare it to related tools like 'manage_deployment' or 'get_script_project' that might overlap in functionality. The agent must 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.