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. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by page_token/page_size), authentication needs (user_google_email suggests user-specific access), rate limits, or return format. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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's front-loaded with the core action ('List a form's responses'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, auth) that annotations would cover, though the output schema may help with return values.

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%, with clear parameter documentation (e.g., user_google_email as 'The user's Google email address. Required.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high 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 'List a form's responses' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('a form's responses'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all responses vs filtered) or differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_form_response' (singular) or 'get_form' (form metadata), leaving it somewhat vague.

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., needing a specific form ID), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_form_response' (for a single response) or 'get_form' (for form details), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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