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 tool reads values, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'read' entails (e.g., returns raw or formatted data). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase ('Read values from a sheet', 'Pass spreadsheet URL or ID') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and basic usage.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the core action but lacks behavioral context and parameter details. The output schema mitigates some gaps by defining return values, but overall it's only minimally adequate.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'spreadsheet' (URL or ID) and implies 'range' through 'Read values from a sheet', but doesn't explain the 'render' parameter or provide syntax examples. This adds minimal 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 action ('Read values') and resource ('from a sheet'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other sheet-related siblings like 'sheets_describe' or 'sheets_write', missing explicit 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'sheets_describe' for metadata or 'sheets_write' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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