gworkspace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all triggers' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality.

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) and only one simple parameter, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, or output characteristics beyond just stating the operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single 'script_id' parameter, the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The description mentions 'for a script project' which loosely relates to 'script_id', but doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to find it, or any constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single parameter.

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 ('List all triggers') and resource ('for a script project'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_create_time_driven' or 'trigger_delete' beyond the basic list vs create/delete 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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with other trigger-related tools like 'trigger_create_time_driven' or 'trigger_delete' that exist in the sibling list.

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