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 lists functions with metadata (file, signature, line numbers), which implies a read-only operation, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the key action ('List all functions') and details the returned attributes. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (which should detail return values), the description does not need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 1 parameter of unclear semantics, and moderate complexity (listing functions in a script), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks context on usage, behavior, and parameters, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (script_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description does not explain what 'script_id' represents (e.g., a project ID, file ID, or how to obtain it), so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema. With low coverage and no compensation, the baseline is 3 as the description at least implies a script project context.

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: 'List all functions in a script project with their file, signature, and line numbers.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('functions in a script project'), and scope ('all'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'script_get_function' or 'script_describe' (if present). This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid script_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'script_get_function' (for a single function) or 'script_get_file' (for file contents). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly framed.

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