gworkspace-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a file, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and three parameters, it should provide more context on behavior and parameters. The description is minimal but covers the basic action, leaving gaps in usage and semantics.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions creating a '.gs file' but doesn't explain the three parameters (script_id, file_name, source), such as what script_id refers to, file naming conventions, or the purpose of the source parameter. It adds minimal value beyond the 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 action ('Create') and the resource ('new .gs file in the script project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_update_file' or 'script_get_file', which would require mentioning that this is for initial creation rather than modification or retrieval.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing script project), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'script_update_file' for editing or 'script_add_function' for adding code snippets, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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