gworkspace-mcp

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 'analyzes' and 'produces' documentation, implying read operations, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether it modifies the spreadsheet (the 'sheet' output option suggests it might), potential rate limits, or what happens with the 'text' output option. The description is insufficient for a tool with potential write operations.

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 well-structured with purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized at 4 sentences. The Args section could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (analyzing multiple components), no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a documentation generation tool that might write to spreadsheets, more disclosure would be helpful.

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 fully compensates by explaining all three parameters. It clarifies that 'spreadsheet_url' accepts URL or ID, 'script_url' is optional and accepts URL or ID, and 'output' has two specific options ('sheet' and 'text') with clear explanations of what each does. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Generate functional documentation for a spreadsheet project' with specific analysis targets (spreadsheet structure, script functions, triggers, manifest). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sheets_describe' or 'script_get_function' by focusing on comprehensive documentation generation rather than simple description or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be more suitable. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for initial documentation versus updates, or how it relates to 'sheets_describe' or 'script_list_functions'.

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