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. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid function names), or the format of the returned source code. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves data.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior, error handling, and parameter context, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent 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?

The description mentions 'by name', which hints at the 'function_name' parameter, but doesn't explain 'script_id' or provide any details beyond what the schema indicates. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value; it compensates slightly by implying the purpose of one parameter, but not enough to elevate the score above baseline.

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 ('Get') and resource ('source code of a specific function by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'script_get_file' or 'script_list_functions', but the specificity of 'function' versus 'file' or 'list' provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'script_get_file' (for full files) or 'script_list_functions' (for listing functions). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid script_id, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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