gworkspace-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the tool's dual-mode behavior (sheet-only vs full discovery), mentioning Google API limitations (container-bound scripts don't appear in Drive API), and specifying what gets returned in each case. It doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the opening establishes purpose, the parameter explanations provide crucial context, and the return statement clarifies the conditional output. No wasted words.

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 parameters, conditional behavior), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, parameter usage, behavioral conditions, and return values. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on when and how to use the tool.

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, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: spreadsheet_url accepts 'URL or ID', and script_url is optional with specific guidance about when to provide it (for full discovery) and what format to use ('Apps Script URL or ID from Extensions > Apps Script'). It also explains the Google limitation that motivates providing script_url.

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 specific action ('Connect to a Google Spreadsheet and discover everything about it'), identifies the resource (Google Spreadsheet), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_describe or sheets_read by emphasizing comprehensive discovery including Apps Script components when available.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to discover spreadsheet structure and Apps Script components) and explains the conditional behavior based on script_url parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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