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 but only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. It mentions 'all comments' but doesn't clarify if this includes resolved comments or metadata, leaving significant gaps for a tool with mutation potential (e.g., comments might be editable).

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (listing comments), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but the lack of parameter details and behavioral context leaves it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no information about the two required parameters ('user_google_email' and 'presentation_id'). It doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they affect the listing, leaving them undocumented.

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 ('all comments from a Google Presentation'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_document_comments' or 'list_spreadsheet_comments' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_document_comments' for Docs or 'list_spreadsheet_comments' for Sheets. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases, offering only a basic statement of function.

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