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 this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 core purpose ('Get full structure of a spreadsheet') and lists key components (sheets, named ranges, protected ranges). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral details and parameter guidance. For a read-only tool with output schema support, it's complete enough to be functional but could be more informative.

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 doesn't mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the single parameter 'spreadsheet' undocumented in both the schema and description. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher (4), but the description adds no value beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'spreadsheet' refers to (e.g., ID, name, or URL), so it slightly undercompensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full structure of a spreadsheet', specifying what information is retrieved (sheets, named ranges, protected ranges). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sheets_read (likely for cell data) and sheets_protect (for modifying protections), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing access to the spreadsheet), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like sheets_read (for cell content) or script_get_file (for script metadata). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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