Google Workspace MCP VE

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it 'lists' projects and uses Drive API, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'accessible' entails (e.g., permissions). The mention of Drive API adds minimal context.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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 a list tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure (e.g., missing auth or rate limit info), it has clear gaps for a tool interacting with user data.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'user_google_email' relates to accessibility or how pagination works. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Google Apps Script projects accessible to the user'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_docs_in_folder' or 'list_drive_items' by specifying Apps Script projects, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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. It mentions using the Drive API, but doesn't specify prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'get_script_project' or 'list_script_processes'.

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