Google Workspace MCP VE

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the return format ('flattened hierarchy with tab IDs, titles, index positions, and nesting depth') and the operation's purpose (read-only listing). While it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, it provides substantial behavioral context for a read operation.

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 perfectly structured with two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.

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 simple read-only nature, 2 parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, return format, and when to use it. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that information.

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 50% (only document_id has a description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, with only 2 parameters and an output schema present, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('all tabs in a Google Doc'), including the scope of 'nested child tabs'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_docs_in_folder' or 'list_spreadsheet_comments' by focusing specifically on document tabs.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Useful as a prerequisite for any tool that takes a `tab_id` parameter' and provides concrete examples (insert_doc_markdown, insert_doc_link, modify_doc_text, etc.). This gives clear guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives.

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