gworkspace-mcp

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. While it mentions 'Uses Drive query syntax' and provides examples, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (pagination beyond page_size), rate limits, or error conditions. The examples help but don't constitute comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by syntax guidance and concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (search with query syntax), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and query format but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and complete parameter semantics. The output schema reduces the burden, but significant gaps remain.

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, the description must compensate but only partially succeeds. It clarifies that the 'query' parameter uses 'Drive query syntax' and provides examples, which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't address the 'page_size' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters without semantic explanation. This partial compensation earns a baseline score.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Drive files'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this search tool from other Drive-related siblings like 'drive_copy' or 'drive_move', which would require a 5.

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. With many sibling tools available (including other Drive operations and Sheets/script tools), there's no mention of when this search is appropriate versus other file access methods or what specific scenarios it addresses.

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