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 describes the listing behavior and scope rules well, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination handling (implied by page_token but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context about drive vs folder relationships but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each earn their place: first establishes core purpose, second explains drive_id behavior, third covers My Drive scenario. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main functionality, and logically organized from specific to general cases.

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 moderate complexity (10 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the key usage scenarios and parameter relationships well. However, for a listing tool with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like pagination strategy, performance considerations, or error conditions.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between drive_id and folder_id, clarifying that drive_id can serve as folder_id for root, and explaining the conditional behavior of include_items_from_all_drives. This provides valuable guidance on how parameters interact, elevating the score above baseline.

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 resources 'files and folders', specifies support for 'shared drives', and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing items rather than creating, updating, or searching. It provides specific scope details that differentiate it from tools like 'list_docs_in_folder' or 'search_drive_files'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool based on drive_id specification (shared drive vs My Drive) and includes the include_items_from_all_drives parameter behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives from the sibling list, such as 'search_drive_files' for filtered searches.

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