Google Workspace MCP VE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a formatted list but doesn't describe pagination behavior (despite a page_size parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'accessible to the user' means in practice. For a read operation with 3 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral 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 appropriately brief with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides return format information. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the return format sentence could be more informative.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (one required) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter guidance, behavioral context, and usage guidelines that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what user_google_email should contain, what page_size controls, or what space_type options exist. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('Google Chat spaces'), specifying both rooms and direct messages. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from many sibling tools that operate on different Google Workspace products, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like list_calendars or list_contacts.

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 any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over other list or search tools in the sibling set.

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